SOLAR_FIELDS

This question hinges on whether model advancement plateaus enough for machine sized models to compare to frontier performance. If it does, the answer is yes. If it doesn’t, the answer is no

There is a well funded US company that pays the same rate to everyone regardless of where they live (or at least did when I interviewed with them several years ago). Unfortunately when I received the offer it was too low to consider vs my other offers because I had no plans to move out of the States but the company had employees living like kings and queens in Vietnam and similar countries

I enjoyed the gameplay but it felt very much like a half finished game. It’s more of a vibey simulation than a complete game.

The developer gets to at least name the roads. I worked for a city, the developers would submit names and while the city had the final call 99% of the time they would just accept whatever the developer submitted. The only times that I saw it get denied were times where it would create confusion like a similarly named road already existed or it could be construed as something profane

Why would any reasonable governing entity (I understand we live in a world where there are not many of these) allow you to run a bunch of natural gas generators in a parking lot?

Convince who? There is no such thing as antitrust anymore in the USA, it’s merely the size of the bribe required to let the merger go through now

It’s not just Europe, most of the developed world works like this. Except for the United States

Ignoring the obvious flaws in the writing and the prose, I find it interesting because it’s one of the more obvious examples of enshittification that plagues American culture - often in ways that are so subtle that one might be considered paranoid for trying to recognize them. It lays bare, in a way that any American can understand (most Americans eat and enjoy ice cream) the consequences of the never ending treadmill of corporate greed

The content was pretty good though IMO. It’s something that I think a lot of people in the USA have long believed and experienced, but seeing a technical takedown demonstrating it hits harder for some reason.

The prose and filler did make me skip a huge chunk of it though. It could have been probably a quarter of the length and had similar impact

At least Sam Altman appeared to drop all pretenses of his pure sociopathy some time ago

Conversely, many of my customers abandoned many of their SaaS solutions because they can now hand roll the 10% of the SaaS solution they need in 15 minutes.

That’s not to say all SaaS is going away. But a good hunk of the single simple solution products are going to suffer

If you want to vibe something that gets you 70% of the way to this well funded startup in like 15 minutes just tell your LLM of choice to create a hook or override the web fetching skill to pipe the content through Mozilla’s readability extension that strips the DOM elements out deterministically, leaving only the content. You can then parse it however you want. Can be done entirely client side, in runtime, with a few JavaScript libraries

If you happen to live within line of site of a cell tower buying a MIMO antenna and beaming internet off of a data plan is also somewhat viable, but Starlink is probably better on bandwidth and packet loss

Now that Apple has containerization api’s probably the gap closed but when I ran benchmarks a couple years ago Orbstack would on average perform the same build at 4x faster wall clock time as docker desktop

Yeah this piece of marketing got me:

> Made to fit in every home, including yours.

Unless that home has stairs

I do find it amusing that you think that the people who would use openclaw know or vaguely even comprehend what the term “opaque binary blob” means

You say this as if the people implementing TLD blocks even understand what the term scoring system means

Where do you have documentation of this party even doing this thing? The Wikipedia entry linked elsewhere does not talk about this perspective at all

Statins are a well understood mechanism of action for controlling cholesterol. We generally understand that people with cholesterol problems leverage statin therapy to address those, and there is a well audited corpus of placebo controlled double blind trials that demonstrate the efficacy of the solution for statin therapy. If you discontinue the statins, you lose the benefit to some extent. How is this situation fundamentally different?

Would it be sad? If it’s gnarly and it solves the problem, as an end user I don’t really care. The only people who lose are the mathematical purists

It is materially better, but I didn’t feel a huge loss when it was yanked. My use case is large complex legacy modernization projects and its ability is definitely better than opus 4.8 at the job. But it’s more like an optimization, I could have a single or 2 pass in fable vs 8-10 with opus to arrive at the same solution.

The way HEB wins the hearts and souls of every Texan is via the tortilla machine. No other major grocery chain stocks fresh, daily made tortillas and instead offers premade "tortillas"

There's just too many nuances to take any measurement less than an order of magnitude of difference seriously without further investigation. Even a 2x can be a simple configuration change for these things. Usually the differences of >1 order of magnitude are enough that you cannot hand wave away the difference without a grossly obvious oversight in configuration

It's so easy for others to casually dismiss how difficult of a problem it is to get this right, especially, as you say, this is happening in flight for many thousands of users. Kudos to you for being transparent and building a genuinely cool and useful platform.

Were they giving people 50 years in prison for it back then too?

The moral of the story here is just to do bloodwork on a regular basis (absolute bare minimum once a year) and respond accordingly. I take some supplements like vitamin D, but I only take what is empirically measurable. If I can't quantitatively measure the outcome, then there is no value and it's a woo woo solution. This isn't always going to be the best advice, but a vast majority of times it will be.

Your reasoning is logical, but fails to pass the bar of "better than or even equal to just literally using some existing platform to attach a $X bounty to some issue I want resolved". There are several popular solutions that exist already to do that, your solution doesn't materially improve there, so what is the value add? It certainly gives the donor more confidence that the issue is being resolved in the way the donor wants it to, but if your problem is to make FOSS maintainer's life easier it doesn't move the needle in that direction, because it gives more power to already demanding FOSS users and less agency to the FOSS maintainer. And even if you solve that problem, does that value add cover a very-steep 20% platform fee?

I think it's a cool idea, don't get me wrong. But it has to be a very good solution to get adopted, like, it would have to significantly streamline the operations of getting bugs resolved by a FOSS maintainer, and I think it's going to be tough for you to try to beat "fire up my favorite agent in my terminal with an already optimized setup and give it this issue that has $X attached" rather than "I have perhaps inefficient token spend from a platform I have no control over and I have to take 20% less of a donation for that privilege"

In other words, I think you've built this solution for donors, and not FOSS maintainers, but really the bottleneck and problem and who you would be selling this solution to is not donors, but rather FOSS maintainers, and that's who you need to solve for if you want a platform like this to work. The donors have the easy job: they throw money at the problem to help it get solved faster. The FOSS maintainers have the hard job: They have to understand, accept the issue, propose a sensible solution, build it out, test it, etc. And your solution just makes it harder for those end users, because now they have two paths in their development workflow to getting issues resolved that they have to maintain, the non paid path and the paid path. So you're significantly increasing the overhead burden on these people and the material gain promised to those end users as the tradeoff is not convincing at all.

It does seem like a worse version of a FOSS donation platform that uses regular old money. I guess one advantage is that you can ensure your money goes directly to using AI to solve specific problems on the codebase, but what does that solve? Are people genuinely worried that if they donate to some FOSS platform that their dollars would go to something else? It seems to me like this removes agency from the FOSS maintainer and gives donators more control over their donation, even though it's explicitly designed not to.

Its efficiency also relies on being better than whatever other platform/harness the maintainer is already using. It's limited to whatever the harness the platform provides, and they're taking a 20% platform fee on top. So I have to, instead of taking $10 from a donor, i take $10 worth of tokens, which may or not be spent more efficiently than me just going in with my claude subscription and fixing it, and I get $8 of those to run in a platform I don't control? In what world as a FOSS maintainer would I sign up for this? It just seems strictly worse than just having a platform that can back resolution of issues with real money... which already exists.

Mind unwrapping this a bit more? I’m interested in iops heavy distributed caching and this seems like it unlocks some creative use cases there

I look forward to the evolution of your project into a less standardized Kubernetes as end users request more and more features of your project.