sulam

My understanding is that people are working on Fuschia in name only at this point. Of course some people are passionate enough to try and keep it alive, but it’s only useful to the degree that it can help the Android team move faster.

Late 2019 I had a short conversation with Abrash about a new OS for the next set of glasses and my immediate reaction was “why?” He was adamant that there was a security need which Linux could not fill (his big concern was too much surface area for exploits in the context of untrusted 3rd party code). I remember thinking that this would be a surprise to cloud engineers at the big hosters, but chose not to continue the argument. He didn’t get where he is by being dramatically wrong very often, after all, but it still struck me as a waste. Note I did not work at Meta so he may have had stronger justifications he chose not to expose.

MCP is widely adopted. This will work with anything that talks it.

I had the same thought, and while this is a complete guess, it passes my sniff test personally. It’s possible that when this setting is not enabled, those wake events are not coalesced into hourly wakeups, but instead happen arbitrarily throughout the night. That would immediately lead to the behavior described.

Way less fun than the ISS, which is like stepping outside on a cold day in comparison. We will have colonies on the moon, Mars, and all the major moons of Jupiter before people are living in the clouds on Venus.

Probably the most interesting topic in this article is trunk stable, although it only got a few sentences. The rest could have been written by Gemini and we couldn’t tell. Trunk stable, though, is a very big deal in Android land and I don’t think many people outside of the Android team or the OEMs understand or even know about it. It is a very significant change in the Android release model and I’m very curious to see how it goes with new phones.

The cloning has been going both ways for years now.

The scaffolding and system prompting around Claude 4 is really, really good. More importantly it’s advanced a lot in the last two months. I would definitely not make assumptions that things are equal without testing.

Yes, but also a lot of other things. It's important to direct the LLM to emphasize some embeddings vs others. This makes the chances of you getting good results exponentially higher.

That would honestly be an extreme red flag for me if I was considering hiring you. As an older engineer myself, I would never roll the dice like that — my contributions in this industry are public and I have the network to show for it. My time is worth something to me, even if it’s not worth anything to anyone else, and the older I get the more that’s true.

If you trust everything the LLM tells you, and you learn from code, then yes the same exact risks apply. But this is not how you use (or should use) LLMs when you’re learning a topic. Instead you should use high quality sources, then ask the LLM to summarize them for you to start with (NotebookLM does this very well for instance, but so can others). Then you ask it to build you a study plan, with quizzes and exercises covering what you’ve learnt. Then you ask it to setup a spaced repetition worksheet that covers the topic thoroughly. At the end of this you will know the topic as well as if you’d taken a semester-long course.

One big technique it sounds like the authors of the OAuth library missed is that LLMs are very good at generating tests. A good development process for today’s coding agents is to 1) prompt with or create a PRD, 2) break this down into relatively simple tasks, 3) build a plan for how to tackle each task, with listed out conditions that should be tested, 3) write the tests, so that things are broken, TDD style and finally 4) write the implementation. The LLM can do all of this, but you can’t one-shot it these days, you have to be a human in the loop at every step, correcting when things go off track. It’s faster, but it’s not a 10x speed up like you might imagine if you think the LLM is just asynchronously taking a PRD some PM wrote and building it all. We still have jobs for a reason.

You can’t project trends out endlessly. If you could, FB would have 20B users right now based on early growth (just a random guess, you get the point). The planet would have 15B people on it based on growth rate up until the 90s. Google would be bigger than the world GDP. Etc.

One of the more bullish AI people has said the models performance scales with log of compute (Sam Altman). Do you know how hard it will be to move that number? We are already well into diminishing returns with current methodologies and there is no one pointing the way to a break through that will get us to expert level performance. RLHF is underinvested in currently but will likely be the path to get us from Junior contributor to Mid in specific domains, but that still leaves a lot of room for humanity.

The most likely reason for my PoV to be wrong is that AI labs are investing a lot of training time into programming, hoping the model can self improve. I’m willing to believe that will have some payoffs in terms of cheaper, faster models and perhaps some improvements in scaling for RLHF (a huge priority for research IMO). Unsupervised RL would also be interesting, albeit with alignment concerns.

What I find unlikely with current models is that they will show truly innovative thinking, as opposed to the remixed ideas presented as “intelligence” today.

Finally, I am absolutely convinced today’s AI is already powerful enough to affect every business on the planet (yes even the plumbers). I just don’t believe they will replace us wholesale.

Fwiw I think this is not true right now. It might be true in the future, I guess. Today you have to learn some pretty specific techniques and they don’t come naturally to most engineers I think. They are accustomed to one-shot Google searches, not prompt engineering. Yes, you can learn how to prompt engineer, but it takes trial and error. A lot of my co-workers today still believe the LLM is useless because it hallucinates API definitions. They very much are not used to tools that require the level of hand-holding you need today.

Either teaching them is going to get easier, which is somewhat plausible actually — or you think LLMs are going to get dramatically easier to prompt with more reliable output. I actually think that’s somewhat implausible. Log(compute) is a pretty hard number to move past a certain point and it seems we’ve hit that point already. RLHF is great, but it doesn’t scale well and the result is that some tools are hard to build. Giving me millions of context tokens is neat, but if it’s wildly expensive and confuses the model on top of that, it’s not actually useful.

I do think there is room to improve and of course there are new techniques to be discovered. The models may even help discover some of them, although I am skeptical that they will find Everest by hill climbing when they’re currently on Pike’s Peak. Or maybe we really need to find Olympus Mons.

Tl;dr — maybe!

Full disclosure, I worked many years at Fitbit, in a very senior role.

The reason you want Whoop to have a subscription (and why I wear a Whoop now) is because it incentivizes the company to ship great hardware _and_ software. If you don’t have a subscription, your company becomes stuck on the treadmill of needing to have a new device to sell to the public every year (or even twice a year) so that you can continue to fund your business. Pebble found this out, too, and it led to their sale eventually.

Worse, the launch dates are not movable. People are largely not going to wait and buy your new watch in January if they wanted to get a Christmas gift for their spouse. The same goes for Mother’s Day. The scope is also not movable, because it has to have certain things for people to be interested vs last year’s model. We all know what happens when you fix scope and date in the iron triangle — quality suffers.

The subscription model has a great property — you can ship the device to your customers when it’s ready and meets your quality bar, and you can theoretically do it for free, because they are already paying a subscription. I realize Whoop did not take this path with their latest device release, they are clearly trying to goose their revenue for a quarter or two. That said, at the end of the day, their full product offering will either earn your subscription or not, which means that you can be confident that they are aligned with your interests. You generally cannot say that about a pure hardware company, unless they are remarkably disciplined with respect to hiring. I have not seen an example of this in the wearable/health space.

I think you can derive a general principle from this, which is that if a company is incented to sell you crap, they will eventually do so. If instead they are required to repeatedly earn your business, they will either maintain high standards for their products or they will go out of business. I mostly choose to spend my money on products made by companies with the latter model.

“Radiologists do far more than study images. They advise other doctors and surgeons, talk to patients, write reports and analyze medical records. After identifying a suspect cluster of tissue in an organ, they interpret what it might mean for an individual patient with a particular medical history, tapping years of experience.”

Now think about how much of software development is typing out the code vs talking to people, getting a clear definition of the problem, debugging, etc. (I would love an LLM that could debug problems in production — but all they can do is tell me stuff I already know). Then layer on that there are far more ideas for what should be built than you have time to actually build in every organization I’ve ever worked in.

I’m not worried about my job. I’m more worried my coworkers won’t realize what a great tool this is and my company will be left in the dust.

It’s an em-dash!

“Has it occurred to Thomas that he might be the problem?”

Biggest laugh I’ve had all week!

That sounds too dumb to be true. As in, is there some missing context that this quote was forklifted from?

Or they could have been Barnes & Noble.

This attitude will eventually burn you.

Sorry but while I won’t argue the battery life angle, you really cannot say that the PebbleOS offers significantly more functionality than WatchOS. It just ain’t so.

You forgot to add “Long TSLA”

Honestly, you have done the most superficial thing here. It’s fine, but K is much more interesting in terms of encoding ideas differently than ALGOL style languages, just as one easy example.

If it was instant we wouldn’t have latency and the three generals problem would be somewhat trivial (ordering would be mildly interesting in an algorithmic sense, but practically meaningless).

Is that different when Wired does it?

Citation needed.

It is well established that teams with more representation make better decisions, likely because of their diversity of viewpoints. It is worthwhile both to companies and to society to have higher quality decision-making in fields like finance and in roles like chief executives.

Current LLMs can absolutely do this as well as you can, probably better.

This article essentially boils down to “Canon is a hardware company, they shouldn’t be allowed to charge for software.” I’m surprised this is news to you, but Canon can make money any way they want (within the bounds of local law). There is no law saying a company known for their hardware cannot decide to sell software.

If Canon started trying to sell cameras that literally only work with their software (not the case today) then maybe you’d have a semi-valid beef, although such a camera would also sell very poorly in the market given the many alternatives that exist, including Canon’s own previous lineup. Even then it wouldn’t be illegal, just harder to justify from a business perspective. Perhaps they could give away a DSLR for a yearly subscription and the math would pencil out for some people. That would be mildly interesting. Canon would have to do a lot of work to close such a product, though, as all of their existing hardware is extremely open.

If you have to get a sale done, it will absolutely create a discount on the price. This is regardless of the interest — all parties know you have a time limit. Yes you may still do a sale quickly and the price may still be at a premium to your last funding round or whatever you want to use as a mark to market, but it will be at a discount to what you could have gotten.