jtrn

I have a special spot that gets extremely annoyed when I feel I have to spend a necessary time just figuring out what something is. The page suffers from "developer-brain" marketing, where they describe the technology used to build it (cloud-native images) rather than what the product actually is. Why not just lead with that it is a Linux distro/version focused on gaming. In the beginning, I thought it was new hardware, then I actually thought it was a streaming service. the website does a poor job of simply stating what it actually is. Then again, I might be stupid, but the problem is that a lot of people are stupid. And I guess many non-developers are going to have a hard time just figuring out what the hell this thing is. I’m probably being too cranky now, but the page reads like a combination of the worst from developers-speak combined with the rest of marketing-speak.

Same is true for: insulin, Levothyroxine, Antiretroviral Therapy (HIV), Enzyme Replacement Therapy ( Pompe Disease or Gaucher Disease, antipsychotic medications for severe schizophrenia. And many others. And here’s the interesting twist, the closer the Number Needed to treat is to 1, the more helpful the medication should be viewed. All these medications have an extremely low NNT, including GLP1s.

I feel AI now is good enough to follow the same pattern as with internet usage. The quality ranges from useless to awesome based on how you use it. Blanked statements that “it is terrible and uesless” reveals more about the person than the tech at this point.

This might not be relevant for you, but generally, such constellations of symptoms should at least trigger a differential diagnosis between anxiety and ADHD. Anxiety can be simplified as "energy mobilized to handle important challenges." Some people with high baseline activation are really focused on managing challenges, whether external or internal. This could resemble ADHD if the person is not avoiding their feelings but instead enduring them. This would explain both tiredness and low benefit from stimulants, scatterbrain, and high energy/activity levels. People usually think that anxiety just causes someone to sit in a corner and be anxious, but many people channel the energy into action and don’t even realize they are doing it due to an extremely high baseline activation of the nervous system. For these people, it’s almost more physiological than psychological. If the activation is always directed at managing and handling something, as opposed to reflexively focusing on the most interesting thing, I would suspect it’s more in the realm of anxiety, or perhaps better described as a really reactive, hair-trigger nervous system. Not saying that it is anxiety, but it might just be that you are the opposite of apathetic.

ADHD yes trough many avenues: change of environment, development, therapy and techniques, medication. Autism: Depends on definition of recovery. If you define it as “no large problems that hinders functioning and happiness”, then yes. If you define at all the symptoms and characteristics that are the cardinal features of the condition; as “completely gone”, then no. And more so the further into the spectrum the person is. People underestimate how noticeable true full blown autism is since it’s been conflated with Asperger’s level of presentation. Note: Many people with autism have happier, more productive lives than neurotypical people, so it’s more of personality description than a disease for them.

You have no idea how normal your situation is. At worst, you are as stupid as the rest of us. At least you’re actually able to understand yourself and actually try to tackle your issues. Don’t feel stupid. Most people doesn’t even bother self reflect.

I personally don’t encounter it as much as I did before when I worked at a children’s psychiatric institution. I think this is explained by the relatively generous welfare system in Norway, where it’s relatively easy to just drop out of society. A lot of people actually seem to prefer it, just staying home gaming or whatever. As such, they have very little incentive to seek help, and when they do, it’s usually someone else in their family who sends them to us, not them seeking us out themselves. I encountered a relatively severe case about 25 years ago: myself. I remember going outside, thinking that the real world was boring compared to video games, and wondering why more people didn’t just game instead of going about in the real world where nothing interesting happened. I’m extremely curious to how all of this is going to play out. I thought the behavior I was watching unfold, with nobody being able to stay away from their phone for 30 seconds, would create some sort of society catastrophe, but so far it hasn’t turned out as bad as I thought it would. But there’s still time I guess. Buy 1990 standards. Everybody is addicted to screens today. But by today’s standard, the normality has shifted a lot, and at least society is hanging in there.

There are two levels to this. The Standard Environmental Fixes This is about finding the right level of stimulation vs. distraction. Many people with ADHD work better with external stimulation, like music. Small habits help, too—like taking photos of tasks to remember them. (e.g., snap a photo of the empty printer paper so you remember to order more when you scroll through your camera roll later).

The Job Fit (The more interesting intervention). Sometimes we need to figure out if the problem is the job, not the person. Some people with ADHD simply cannot tolerate meaningless or monotonous tasks. An active person, for example, probably shouldn't work as a data entry clerk. for instance a 50-year-old builder who becomes a manager because his body is too beat up for hard labor. He is suited for leadership but can't stand the administrative work. Even if he wants the job, the boredom of the paperwork makes him miserable. These are the people who often present as depressed and benefit most from medication, as it gives them the stability to tolerate boring but necessary tasks. So basically spanning everything from small techniques, to existential and professional evaluation of best fit, to medication. Everyone is different.

If anybody has a question for a clinical psychiatrist from Norway who has worked with both adults, children, and at an inpatient unit, over many years, feel free to ask. Maybe I can contribute something compared to many of the computer-related discussions here that are beyond my expertise.

On the article I would somewhat agree but it’s too limited a view. It ignores too much of the at current assumed underlying causes that we know are relevant. For instance, it’s more correct to say that autism is associated with an increased attentions to “details”, not small things, and challenges with associations and broad concepts, maybe grounded all the way down to increased dendritic connectivity due to less aggressive pruning. of Also, the effect of motivation to focus over a period of time on unrewarding activities is not well incorporated into this theory of (monotropism). I thing there are some valid obersvation but it’s way to simplistic a model when working with real life ADHD. For instance, on interesting commonality seems to be inability to filter out information. But ADHD are unable to filter out Salient content (like a conversation) and autism are usually unable to filter out details or granular sensory stimuli.

Anyways. Ask and I can attest give my perspective

I assumed that the display is actually watchable, as it seems to be. I have multiple AR and VR glasses, and I have never gotten fed up with them due to an inability to view the content properly. But having to struggle with getting it to show the content I want...

For instance, the teleprompter is terrible and buggy when it tries to follow along based on voice. A simple clicker for moving forward in a text file would be better than how it currently works.

How many people say they lost interest due to ocular issues versus complaints that it’s just not useful?

Seriously. A simple file browser with support for text files only would be more useful than the finicky G1 apps.

Of course visual issues could occur for someone, but it’s so aggravating that the they can’t just put in some sort of customization for content properly

The only thing that matters is how easily I can customize what is shown on the screen. Everything else is probably just annoying, like the translation or map feature, which I assume will be finicky and useless. If the ring had four-way arrows and ok/back buttons, and the glasses had a proper SDK for creating basic navigation and retrieval, such as the ability to communicate with HTTP APIs, there would be no limit to the useful things I could create. However, if I'm forced to use built-in applications only, I have very little faith that it would actually be useful, considering how bad the last generation of applications for these devices was.

So is this better, different or replacing current codex ?

Makes me think og Borat.

Anchoring!!! If the range has nothing to do with the items in question, just have simple number input. Tested multiple times and all items were below default / midpoint.

The number of times I know that my instruction is in context, but it’s forgotten, is countless at this point for me. My experience, both ad a clinical psychologist and developers, is that there is a convergent trend in how I speak to both clients and AI. I can view much of my therapist's approach in how I try to highlight the important things to focus on to achieve progress. Often, it’s about helping the client articulate and understand what’s important to them and how they rank these priorities. The same applies to AI. It feels obvious now that the problem with attention and context is the lack of hierarchy or levels of importance. We know that we have, probably biologically based, three types of memory: short-term, intermediate, and long-term. Long-term memory is what you use with MCP, web search, and RAG. Shorter memory is the current response, and intermediate memory is the current context. When assume this, in my interactions with an agent, it makes perfect sense where they falter and what they forget, in the exact same way as people. It feels more and more like talking to a human, with same weaknesses in logic, reasoning, and focus.

Why are unhappy people constantly trying to convince themself and the world, that it’s because they are smart.

I hate these articles so much. The title should be: “Speculation on how GLP-1a drugs could theoretically reduce alcoholism while waiting for any real evidence”.

99% of promising mice studies does not result in clinical practical application in humans. And theoretical associations and mechanisms of action should not be promoted without huge asterisk to contextualize how often such speculation are wrong.

If you complain about AI slop and don’t see how this is just as bad science slop, please go listen to Sabine Hossenfelder. This is just as bad, and create just as much useless noise as AI content does on the nett.

The only way this makes sense is if you are looking at the Vue 2 GitHub page. The new Vue 3 is at 52k stars on GitHub, has multiple releases per month, and is ranked 7th A-tier framework in the "State of JS" framework rankings. It holds second place in frontend framework "experience with" and "sentiment," just behind React, with 6+ million weekly downloads on socket.dev and npmstats, ahead of both Angular and Svelte. So, I guess we have a different definition of "dead."

I'm a clinical psychologist by day, and I just have to say how incredibly bad all the writing and talk about suicidality in the public sphere are. Given that I worked in an acute inpatient unit for years, I have seen multiple suicides both in-unit and after discharge, and i also work as private clinician for years, so I have some actual experience.

The topic is so sensitive, and everybody thinks that they KNOW what causes it, and what we should do. And it's almost all just noise.

For instance, it's a dimension, from "genuine suicidal intent" to "using threats of suicide to manipulate others." Anybody that doesn't understand what factors to look for when trying to understand where a person is on this spectrum, and that doesn't understand that a person can be both at the same time, does not know what they are talking about regarding suicidal ideation.

Also, there is a MASSIVE difference between depressive psychotic suicidality, narcissistic suicidality, impulsive suicidality, accidental suicide, fainting suicidal behavior, existential suicidality, prolonged anxiety suicidality, and sleep-deprived suicidality. To think that the same approach works for all of these is insane, and pure psychotic suicidality.

It's so wild to read everything people have to say about suicidality, when it's obvious that they have no clue. They are just projecting themselves or their small bubble of experience onto the whole world.

And finally, I know most people who are willing to contribute to the discussion on this, the people who help out OpenAI in this instance, are almost dangerously safe in their advice and thinking. They are REALLY GOOD at writing books and giving advice, TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SUICIDAL, and give advice that sounds good, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SUICIDAL, but has no real effect on actual suicide rates. For instance, if someone are suffering from prolonged sleep deprivation and anxiety, all the words in the world are worth less than Benzodiazepines. If someone is postpartum depressed, massive social support boosting, almost showering them with support, is extremely helpful. And existential suicidality (the least common) needs to be approached in an extremely intricate and smart way, for instance by dissecting the suicidality as a possible defense mechanism.

But yeah, sure, suicidality is due to [Insert latest societal trend], even if the rate is stubbornly stable in all modern societies for the last 1000 years.

In our small firm, we did a review of the usual suspects when deciding which of the big players would be the right horse to bet on for the future when planing to rewrite our core application.

We ended up with Vue vs. Svelte and landed on Vue/Nuxt since we agreed they have the most intuitive syntax for us, and it seemed like the one with the best trajectory, technologically speaking.

That was one year ago. It's not moving as fast as I would hope, but I still think Vue/Nuxt is a better choice than React at least. This article seems to support this somewhat.

Also, I did a review (with the help of all the big LLMs), and they seem to agree that Vue has the syntax and patterns that are best suited for agentic coding assistance.

The wins with regards to "First Contentful Paint" and "size" is not the most important. We just trust the Vue community more. React seems like a recipe for a bloated bureaucratic mess. Svelte still looks like a strong contender, but we liked the core team of Vue a lot, and most of us just enjoy Vue/Nuxt syntax/patterns better.

No wifi 7. No 5g. No 16". No upgrade to Max ram. No upgrade to screen. No Bluetooth 6. No upgrade for me. I’ll stay with my M1 Max for now.

Allow me to try a analogy.

You and sfRattan rightfully pointing to a disease (large cloud providers using true free software to make money without contributing back). But "fair source" cure is a new, unproven drug with serious side effects, all while ignoring the established, effective vaccine (strong copyleft GPL/AGPL and dual-licensing), that has been available for decades. The rise of "fair source" is both as sign of "market panic" and just "marketing". It does not seem to be necessary or good evolution for software freedom.

That was HIGHLY abstract... So much so that I am not sure it maps onto reality, but I at least think this is a valid concern.

Are you me? That was so scarily close to how I think about this that I could have thought I wrote it myself. Except you know a more about licenses :P Well written. Thanks.

Edit: I would also add that, based on the specific software/business, the problem with "rug-pulling," as described by another user here, is a real thing. I think that the reason Obsidian doesn't get hate, while being closed source, is that they are at least predictable and honest about their strategy. Their pricing is fair, and development and business plans are openly communicated. It's silly to be angry at a firm for wanting to be closed source, but if they start out pretending to be fully open source and community-motivated, while receiving lots of coding contributions, then suddenly do a rug-pull by removing features from the community edition and paywalling all important features, that is something a lot of us are going to be annoyed by.

Rug-pull is a good description of how I feel also.

And the most annoying thing for me is that I, like you, actually WOULD be happy to pay a REASONABLE price. But all the patterns nowadays are bi-modal. Stripped-down community edition to get open-source and community credit (and hopefully free coding contributions) on one end.And on the other end; enterprise pricing, with per-user or other complex pricing rules and restrictions. And only after "Let's talk" and "Contact sales" waste of time.

What about a reasonable, low recurring fee with no limits on what I can do with it if I self-host? Or a modest one time price for one version of the software? It doesn't cost the creator any more whether I have 2 users or 200 if I self-host.

I used to disagree a lot with Richard Stallman, but now when I ask AI to help search for software alternatives, I always specify "Only TRUE FOSS alternatives, with no enterprise option or paywalled features." Not because I don't want to pay a fair price, but to avoid being flogged AND the unnecessary complexity of setting up a damn equation to figure out how much it will cost.

The other licensing shoe is going to drop. And when it does, it will be same as always. Important features will be cut of from “community” edition, like admin for minio, and pricing will be predatory for full product, like Taipy. Seriously, screw Taipy. Got quoted 200k for an open license if I wanted to self host it, with no limit on number users.

Ups

I find Cursor at the same level as Claude code, with some strengths and some weaknesses. Cursor is nice when I want to start multiple parallel agents, while browsing files, monitoring the progress, and switching models as needed. It’s just a simple, zero config environment i can just start using intuitively.

Claude code is more reliable and generally better at using MCP for tool cal, like docs from contex7. So if I had only one prompt and it HAD to make something work, Claude code would be my bet.

Personally I like jumping between models and IDEs , if only to mix it up. And you get a reminder of different ways of doing stuff.

Did something change with Kiro, or was I just using it wrong? I tried to have it make a simple MCP server based on docs, and it seriously spent 6 hours without making a basic MVP. It looked like the most impressive planner and executor while working, but it just made a mess.

I’d rather have better file/media management in the API. Speaking as someone that lives AI and uses it for everything.

That's an extremely dense question :) (Not pejorative, but conceptual dense).

I had some fun trying to answer it, ignoring fixating on whether or not the premise is true, for argument's sake.

My answer is:

I would think "attempting to assess reality that is not grounded in reality" is hard to ignore due to a combination of "it's what is available," being easy to understand, and seeming useful (decoupled from whether it's really so). As a result, it's hard to ignore because it's what is mostly available to us for consumption and is easy to make "consumable."

I think there is a LARGE overlap in this topic with my pet peeve and hatred of mock tests in development. They are not completely useless, but their obvious flaws and vulnerabilities seem to me to be in the same area: "Not grounded in reality."

Said another way: Because it's what's easy to make, and thus there is a lot of it, creating a positive feedback loop of mere-exposure effect. Then it becomes hard to ignore because it's what's shoved in our face.