1,731 karma · joined January 3, 2012
Don't worry about the future
Or worry, but know that worrying
Is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing Bubble gum
The real troubles in your life
Are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind
The kind that blindsides you at 4 p.m. on some idle Tuesday
- Everybody's free (to wear sunscreen)
Baz Luhrmann
(or maybe Mary Schmich)1. https://strangestloop.io/essays/things-that-arent-doing-the-...
I think that's ok, as he actually would get a lot more than 10 minutes of use out of it, and its great to pay the creators while not having to worry about ads manipulating my kid. But it highlights how expectations for the pricing of audio/video content has changed (probably for the worse)... for me at least.
1. https://github.com/kevinAlbs/SphericalSnake/blob/b907738476d...
This sentence gave me pause and I’ll be chewing it over in my mind for awhile, I think.
Edit: As mentioned by @tedsanders below, the post was edited to include clarifying language such as: “Both models make clear mistakes, but GPT‑5.2 shows better comprehension of the image.”
> Sure, if you’re building a consumer product. Your HTTP client, cli utility helper, whatever library is not a consumer product. The people who will ever care about it just want to know what it does.
——
It sounds like the author doesn’t view themselves as a consumer in this relationship, that they are immune to marketing, and that what they are advocating for isn’t just another marketing tactic. I’m not sure if any of those are true.
My experience with areas that use functional names to describe things is that you end up in a sea of acronyms (the functional-based names are a mouthful!) and you end in an arguably worse situation (did you say ABDC or ADBC, those are two completely different things).
I think the idea is that the person would be happy to circle back and finish the first thing they started, but simply forget about it altogether, so they think they are done with tasks and go on to other ("unproductive") stuff. If they can inject the habit of always checking stuff off a list when finishing things, they'll see they never finished the first thing they started, and then take care of that.
Checking off things from the list is much more satisfactory than adding things to a list, so it makes sense to have input be as low friction as possible, while checking off can be a bit more work (pulling out a phone which has the list).
I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of this in reality. Just a thought.
Sadly I didn’t make a backup of my paper (not sure how I managed to screw that up), so I no longer have it.
> When I notice a micro-task like this, my instinct is not to do it, but to put it in the todo list. Then I try to do it immediately. And if I get distracted halfway through, it’s still there, in the todo list.
https://borretti.me/article/notes-on-managing-adhd
The problem with this approach is that recording tasks become a good amount of relative overhead compared to the 'micro-task' if it involves pulling out your phone, and pulling out your phone also introduces a potential distraction. So, having something that is single purpose and as low-friction as possible is appealing.
I'm skeptical that this is actually any better than using a smart watch that you can dictate to though.
This is my biggest gripe with LLM use in practice.
In general, I’d say it’s not a good idea to pass bearer tokens to the LLM provider and keep that to the MCP client. But your client has to be interoperable with the MCP server at the auth level, which is flakey at the moment across the ecosystem of generic MCP clients and servers as noted.
Not sure what the length has to do with handcraftedness though. This comment is handcrafted even if it is short.
And my memory might be from our Apple 2gs and AppleScript, actually (hence my caveat in the comment). But I’m sure the program was just PRINTs, INPUTs, IFs and GOTOs :)
Oh, what the heck, it’s been 20 years. Vertex Pharmaceuticals: shame on you. In the mid-2000s you had very poor taste in browsers ;-)
Or at least, that’s how I remember it. It’s been a good 40 years though and I wouldn’t be surprised if reality was quite a bit different.
Edit: I’ve been thinking about this a bit and honestly my motivation for writing software hasn’t really changed. The users, sure, but not the motivation. It’s just thrilling to share things I built with other people.
Also, IE4 was such a magnificent leap forward in the web that effectively enabled support for modern apps, which bought IE a ton of goodwill from me that didn’t wear off for a decade or so.
Well, yeah. The bathtub curve is a simplified model that is ‘wrong’, but it is also a very useful concept regarding time to failure (with some pretty big and obvious caveats) that you can broadly apply to many manufactured things.
Just like Newtonian physics breaks down when you get closer to the speed of light, the bathtub curve breaks down when you introduce firmware into the mix or create dependencies between units so they can fail together.
I know the article mentions these things, and I hate to be pedantic, but the bathtub curve is still a useful construct and is alive and well. Just use it properly.