thebenedict

I'm impressed by how far I can get "vibe making". Most of my professional experience is in high-level software, but AI gets me unstuck quickly when I don't know something specific to ESP-IDF or the hardware. As of today I've got a circuit tested, firmware nearly complete, and a custom PCB en route from JLCPCB.

One limitation I’ve noticed: ChatGPT struggles with the details of part selection (e.g. choosing specific temp/humidity sensors or connectors). Adding datasheets to the context helps a lot, which makes me wonder why this isn’t something the model can do or at least ask for.

Ultrasonic knives are historically large footprint devices used in commercial/industrial food prep. The innovation here is making ultrasonic hardware compact enough to fit in the knife handle.

A lot of the interview prep industry deliberately stokes interview anxiety to drive sales. I appreciate that you folks have a product (and marketing tone, usually) that emphasizes results over hype, but I think this post falls short.

I probably didn't exhaust all possibilities -- wonder if this is a solved problem.

I'll second the suggestion to speak with a professional therapist or coach if it's an option. These situations are difficult to navigate and a neutral perspective can be helpful.

I'm not affiliated with them, but Matt (cofounder) has a background in scientific publishing and is passionate about recipe sharing.

At the scale of Google Books, we're not talking about using copyrighted recipes unchanged or copying and pasting. If you buy a ton of cookbooks, scan them, make them searchable by the world and derive new information about cooking from analyzing them, can you profit from the derived knowledge? Should that change if the publisher or author made an active decision not to make their content available electronically, or asked you to exclude them from your analysis?

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/nyregion/elderly-patrons-e...

They write thoughtful blog posts on self-reflection, building an inclusive community and working hard to improve. These are values I identify with so it's disappointing not to be given an opportunity to participate, and no feedback after putting effort into the application. On the other hand they have a popular program and have to reject a lot of people.

It's hard to imagine (but maybe possible?) there could be a comparable quality, net-neutral alternative. What would the model be?

[1]: http://www.thebenedict.com/posts/2015/12/26/free-basics-alte...

Charitable organizations often prefer the cash [1], but open source is different -- I suspect many developers have more context and preparation than the typical volunteer. On the other hand few people will be as efficient in a code base as the original authors.

[1] (http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2014/mar...)

  * Well defined procedures for choosing what to work on and for how long
  * Agreement on what metrics to to base go/no-go decisions for continuing with an idea past the initial stages
  * Contracts to specify how spinoff equity is assigned. One interesting proposal I've heard involves a calculation based on developer hours worked over the initial development period.

I appreciate that this is hard (if possible) to do in practice, and that lack of vision might be a fundamental problem. It also feels like it could be an excuse to treat developers poorly -- which was one of my concerns when I had the opportunity and seems to have happened in this case.

I'm curious about "idea factories are a dime a dozen, and nobody would want to work for one". I've turned down similar arrangements in the past because they felt vaguely sketchy, but didn't realize "idea factories" are common. What are the problems with them?