With LLM code, I'd rather have higher-level abstractions.
2,456 karma · joined December 23, 2014
Opinions my own, etc.
With LLM code, I'd rather have higher-level abstractions.
A reason is that I use i3 workspaces, with each workspace being for different tasks, so I don't want to reuse a terminal that has another context.
One issue with keeping a single shell is that the history is full of irrelevant stuff. If you run commands that take a while and print a lot of output, you want it to be as clean as possible. If I want the beginning of the command, I can scroll to the top, and I don't end up with some unrelated output.
I also take quite notes in vim everywhere, often next to long-running commands, using tmux.
I guess that somewhat breaks with fish: either you use bash -c '...' from the start, or you adopt the fish syntax, which means you need to convert again when you switch to a (bash) script.
This one is on its way to becoming part of the social media ecosystem. That's what the "Updates" feature is.
To get an idea of what it will look like, check out Instagram users who use it for both 1:1 messaging and social media (1:many) features. Which (again anecdotally) is widely used in younger generations.
Few of my friends use Instagram or TikTok, but I think we're just outliers. I see many (young) users, all the time, whenever I'm on the train.
Other commenters have already set the record straight, pointing out that these are clearly not in the same cluster.
See also https://www.thelocal.de/20250430/switzerland-suspends-deutsc...
Pay-walled, but the title says it all: "Switzerland suspends Deutsche Bahn trains due to chronic delays". DB is so unreliable that it impacts the networks of neighboring countries.
If you have a CLI, you can even script this yourself, if you don't trust your tool to actually try to compile and run tests on its own.
It's a bit like a PR on github from someone I do not know: I'm not going to actually look at it until it passes the CI.
But that's not what we're discussing here, we're discussing warnings that have been ignored in the past, and all of a sudden I'm supposed to take the political risk to fix them all somehow, even though there's no new crash, no new information.
I don't know how much freedom you have at your job; but I definitely can't just go to my manager and say: "I'm spending the next few weeks working on warnings nobody else cared about but that for some reason I care about".
I'm also referring to all the warnings you might get if you use an existing library. If the requirements entail that I use this library, should I just silence them all?
But I'm guessing you might be talking about more specific warnings. Yes I do fix lints specific to my new code before I commit it, but a lot of warnings might still be logged at runtime, and I may have no control over them.
Or are you only considering a certain warnings?
Has this ever been considered?
The problem with warnings is that they're not really observable: few people actually read these logs, most of the time. Making the deprecation observable means annoying the library users. The question is then: what's the smallest annoyance we can come up with, so that they still have a look?
Do you then think it'll improve to reach the same stability as other kinds of infra, eventually, or are there more fundamental limits we might hit?
My intuition is that as the models do more with less and the hardware improves, we'll end up with more stability just because we'll be able to afford more redundancy.
There's probably something with the position of the hand when you move the mouse as well. At least I seem to be moving mostly the wrist when I use my mouse, meaning that my hand and forearm are not always aligned; without this alignment, I feel there's more strain on the wrist when typing.
Or they're dead.
If you save an extra $2000/year, what are you supposed to do with the money if you're always hungry, if you're always cold? I'm guessing you could buy food and clothes; you'd end up at $0, just slightly better off. If there's no safety net to rely on, you'd save to be able to face the next problem, and maybe pay it less with your health (which is a kind of invisible debt).
And that's even assuming there's some certain income you can rely on. In my case, I know that for the next few months, I'd at least get unemployment benefits if I lost my job. Not everyone get that, and if you don't, the income floor is $0 and it's way harder to budget.
Another aspect to consider is that maybe the case of a single person who would be in poverty throughout a long life is not representative of poverty. Some people get out of poverty, some fall into it, some die early from it. If we're considering a single person always starting at $0 and always ending up at $0, several years in a row, we already dismiss these nuances. I'm sure you can find such examples, someone who lived to be 80 with a constant wealth of $0, but how common are they really?
Is there evidence that their revenues are growing faster than their costs?
As an aside, I find most of these commands very long. I tend to use very short aliases, ideally 2 characters. I'm assuming the author uses tab most of the time, if the prefixes don't overlap beyond 3 characters it's not that bad, and maybe the history is more readable.
I'm surprised that you find it comfortable enough for 6+ hours, especially since you probably need to keep it plugged in. I thought the consensus was that for most users it was hard to keep them on even for just a whole movie.
I don't think the tech is good enough for me personally but I'm hoping we get there in a few years.
This friction to switch is just not there for chatbots offering substantially equivalent features. That's why ChatGPT is still mostly free: most users would leave the moment they impose stricter limits. If you know nothing about smartphones but they cost a significant amount of your income, well you try to know more before you buy anything. There's no reason to do that for chatbots yet given that they're free to use, just try it out and stick to the first one you tried until they make it bad enough for you to want to switch.
That's one of the issues with the current valuation: it's unclear to me how many of the 800M MAU will stick to ChatGPT once it monetizes more aggressively, especially if its competitors don't. How many use ChatGPT instead of Claude because the free version offers more? How many will just switch once it doesn't anymore?
OpenAI is already at a 500B valuation; the numbers I could find indicate that this number grew 3x in a year. One can reasonably ask if there's some ceiling or if it can keep on growing indefinitely. Do we expect it to become more valuable than Meta or MSFT? Can they keep raising money at higher valuations? What happens if they can't anymore, given that they seem to rely on this even for their running costs, not even speaking about their investments to remain competitive? Would current investors be fine if the valuation is still 500B in a year, or would they try to exit in a panic sell? Would they panic even if the valuation keeps growing but at a more modest pace?
I know folks who still use some old Apple laptops, maybe 5+ years old, since they don't see the point in changing (and indeed if you don't work in IT and don't play video games or other power-demanding jobs, I'm not sure it's worth it). Having new models with some performant local LLM built-in might change this for the average user.
Maybe that of 20 years ago, it's very smooth these days if you use e.g. Debian.