jayd16

Is this top tier satire or pure naivety? You're arguing that military contractors or public companies couldn't possibly be corrupt or nefarious?

Earth codebases only.

Less sloppy in that it's clean and consistent looking but much more sloppy in the AI good looking non-sense way.

Waste of time and therefore money is a big one.

The Vision Pro, for example, has enough fidelity that you can do that sort of thing with a hand gesture fairly easily.

> It's not like Meta has been building their empire on open ecosystems.

Is this actually true? They have their closed social graph or whatever but come to think of it they're built on a lot of open tech, the web, Android, etc. Maybe they don't contribute back to a lot of these things?

I'm fully ready to believe it but it would be interesting to dive into this conjecture.

For the most part, a phone gets you most of the way there. They're currently the apex predators of the mobile space.

I think the one thing that a headset does bring to the table is the hands free nature of it. There are quite a few AR apps and use cases that phones can currently do that fall short because you need to hold your phone out and that's really invasive and fatiguing.

In theory you could have things like a walk through of a DIY engine repair that adds virtual pointers and highlights to important things.

You could do this in a video where you go to your phone, watch a step, rewind, put the phone down, find where in the real world the thing is, do the thing, wipe your hands, pick up the phone, repeat etc. but I imagine it would be nicer in AR.

I'm not saying spend a trillion dollars on this, just that it would be a neat thing.

Sure, a lot of these are super niche. But each one of these costs nothing. Gadgets become software.

Its the final gadget.

You mean like if they google you?

Nothing I described replaces or impacts talking to a human. If someone is going to distract themselves in XR, they can already do it more efficiently on a handset. The only change would be your posture and eye strain could possibly improve.

Because its cool.

I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges.

You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone.

But still, its too heavy and to do the spatial anchoring you need a device with a constant camera feed and the only folks who make that at the moment have questionable morals.

Is the crux of this article just that the Chinese oil reserve is 2x the capacity of the US oil reserve?

Is there anything more to it than that?

I haven't (and won't) gone that far, but what's been working for me is denying all arbitrary code execution, grep, glob etc, and then allowing the JetBrains MCP. At least that way it's essentially locked down to the IDE project.

Then you can treat most asks as a signal something has gone wrong. For the most part it seems to work well within that box.

The ambiguity is that a server rack could gain the functionality of a phone, maybe it's about some kind of self hosted Google Voice alternative.

I think it's awkwardly phrased because it's too ambiguous.

"My car is a Jeep now" is most likely saying "I switched to using a Jeep as my car" because, short of a large merger, it's not likely that the same car changed its brand.

The same server can become a phone and also the identification of my server can be switched to a phone.

Yeah so this falls into the engineering trap of "well it's hard so we can skip that part."

If they can't train things safely then they shouldn't do it at all.

What is your definition of hacking if it doesn't include using leaked security tokens scraped from the web? Also, kirk 100% cheated.

A tool that will "do anything they can to solve it" including illegal and unhelpful things does not seem like a good tool to me.

You're right to push back

I think the fear is that a lot of this stuff will end up being load bearing. A lot more folks now know enough to be dangerous but not enough to know what to throw away.

You dump the 100m first and then you get to see if its fun to play. That's a bit hyperbolic but especially for big games, they really don't come together until the end.

Now, normally you could use pedigree to make smart bets about who can make a game but there have been so many buy outs and shake ups that a lot of the AAA studios have been gutted. Who is a hit maker now?

I've seen a lot of good games killed by large studios because they feel the opportunity cost is too great, despite being profitable.

Mediocre games also happen to blow up all the time. So I'm sure there's a lot of sentiment around not getting that lucky.

I also think it's a spectrum. You need a good enough game and to be lucky.

Just because it takes effort or time to tell a fake doesn't mean its not important.

If you buy a fake that looks extremely close but falls apart a month later, that doesn't mean you don't care.

If art is visually polished in some way such that quick quality cues are handled that doesn't mean that it will actually have a meaning or a message. You won't know until you have a chance to fully consume it.

Hmm but a lot of macos uses the familiar cancel/next wizard flow, doesn't it?

Canada is currently on the short list of countries Trump throws into his usual mad-libs of grievance flavored policy making.

The point is more that it's non-trivial and should not be treated as easily accomplished.

Ok now add a Path shape that has to calculate the area of a polygon with arbitrary complexity.

Consider how the workload is now dominated by the core task of actually calculating the area, reducing the impact of struct usage.

Consider the diffs required to make this change.

It's not like Clean Code should be taken as gospel but this micro-benchmark is not a realistic example of what CC is trying to solve.

We're all complaining about the low effort verbatim dumps, not disclosing Claude usage as part of an earnest attempt to help.

Different roles and specialties? Different work history?

You mean like when juniors would copy paste Stack Overflow without verifying or even understanding it?

No. We hated that too.

Actual research is, of course, fine.