pockybum522

(I am floored that this works. This is amazing.)

Are they quirky? As hell. But by and large, are they enshittifying like the big box software? No, most of them are getting better, and rapidly.

Personally, I find there's nothing like actually looking forward to a software update like I did in 2005 and expecting new, useful, features and then actually getting them in an update to restore my sense of computing whimsy.

Obviously do what works for you. This is just not my experience.

I think I'll keep just making up basic sketches when I need to work with one of these protocols - it's also nice that if I do that, when I see it work, I know I can expand functionality from there into what I need.

In a default native install, I get a crosshair and grid dots, and when I select "line > 2 points" I can click on the canvas twice and I get a line between those locations.

Edit: All tools appear to be broken and clicking on the canvas after selecting a tool doesn't draw anything.

Google Chrome Version 150.0.7871.46 (Official Build) (64-bit)

I also tried in an incognito tab in case it was an extension or cache issue, still nothing.

At that level of abstraction, this is useless.

One of my favorites.

Yesterday I had to explain to Opus what the color white is and what "bottom right" means after it declared problems fixed, repeatedly, that a literal preschooler would have been able to tell were absolutely unchanged from the original problem description.

I am still waiting for this world of redundant programmers I've been hearing about for years.

The relevant people that can do the research and write future policies based on the data obviously will have the information. Not sure what good you think that you personally having it can do.

The entire manual involvement for me from hitting go on the printer to handing out their minis to my friends, ready to be painted, I would estimate at just over five minutes per mini. This includes removing supports. This reads like it was written in 2010, not 2025.

A titanium ring with wavy rails on the sides, incorporating flowers in the middle of the band, where the wavy rails move farthest away from each other. The flowers should be a lily, sunflower, and then a spot for a gem, followed by a lily, sunflower, and then a spot for a gem and then a sunflower. The flowers should be evenly spaced around the whole band.

And it got the basics right, looked good, but it put the gem settings between the flowers, where the wavy rails were closest together. I tried several attempts at putting prompts in the "How should we modify this?" box such as "No, the gem settings should be where the flowers are, but every other flower" and "Don't put the gem settings at the points where the wavy edges are closest together" and it just failed hilariously. No matter how I phrased it, it kept putting the gem settings where the rails were closest together. After three (or it might have been four) attempts I gave up.

I could have explained the entire ring to a jeweler in a short paragraph, and any issues with it could be fixed in a sentence or two. I'm not sure why I need a frustrating middleman. And don't feel bad, this applies to nearly everything I use built on LLMs.

It's a cute toy, but boy are LLMs not remotely ready for production anything. I didn't even bother to give it the other aspects of the ring because if it can't get one of the most basic things in four tries of exceedingly clear language, then why would I keep going?

Your connection is working correctly.

Vercel is working correctly.

504: GATEWAY_TIMEOUT Code: FUNCTION_INVOCATION_TIMEOUT ID: iad1::b6d7d-1751062063140-14fa915b731f