wrasee

Only if you assume a priori that you are going to read it anyway, which misses the whole point.

Because you should have read RFC 1331.

Even then your argument assumes that optimising for total time (to include your own learning time) is the goal, and not solving the business case as a priority (your actual problem). That assumption may not be the case when you have a patch to submit. What you solve at what time point is the general case, there’s no single optimum.

I would remember the reply from the LLM, and cross references back to the particular parts of the RFC it identified as worth focusing time on.

I’d argue that’s a more effective capture as to what I would remember anyway.

If wanted to learn more (in a general sense) I can take the manual away with me and study it, which I can do more effectively on its own terms, in a comfy chair with a beer. But right now I have a problem to solve.

I could also walk everywhere, but sometimes technology can help.

There’s no way I could fully read that RFC in an hour. And that’s before you even know what reading to focus your attention on, so you’re just being a worse LLM at that point.

The other 10% being what differentiates them in the market :)

I think you’re arguing a straw man

I don’t think the point was “don’t use LLM tools”. I read the argument here as about the best way to integrate these tools into your workflow.

Similar to the parent, I find interfacing with a chat window sufficiently productive and prefer that to autocomplete, which is just too noisy for me.

I thought the advent of UFEI would finally put GRUB to rest.

Worse, if you dual boot and each OS installs its own GRUB you can get all kinds of silly situations where one GRUB will chain load to another GRUB and then boot the OS.

Why not just hit F12 (or whatever) and UEFI gives you this nice little menu of all your boot options right there, before installers can come in and ruin it. (Like Windows that always seems to barge in and put itself on top trashing whatever you had before.)

> But, once I learned that no embedded libc variants had printf just no output path

Did you mean "once I learned that no, embedded libc variants have printf"?

To clarify as I had to check, embedded libc variants do indeed have some (possibly stripped-down) implementation of printf and as you say they just lack the output path (hence custom output backends like UART, etc).

> “Of course, you wouldn't get away with it now.”

I say, try. Publish "Crap Towns, 20 Year Update" and ask what's changed? Revisit some of the original places, take some new photos. Plenty of scope to continue the humour, but also scope to hint at some wider reflections and continue the conversation. Having recognition of the first book also adds some authority to your commentary.

He says he won't, but he's also right that if it's funny, it works. Humour has a wonderful way of being able to say things you couldn't otherwise be able to communicate so effectively.

And a book that dares to go beyond the humour and reflect on 20 years of progress, would love to see it.

One problem is that one person’s hammock time is another’s overthinking time and needs the opposite advice. Of course it’s about finding that balance and that’s hard to pin down with words.

But I take your point and the trend definitely seems to be towards quicker action with feedback rather than thinking things through in the first place.

In that sense LLM’s present this interesting middle ground in that it’s a faster cycle than actually writing the code, but still more active and externalising than getting lost in your own thoughts (not withstanding how productive that can still be).

Except when I read it it was an article on a webpage, currently linking from the front page of Hacker News.

Perhaps just enough to be an accident, but somewhat fortunate.

As an aside:

> Before we go any further: I hate to ask you to do this, but I need your help — I'm up for this year's Webbys for the best business podcast award. I know it's a pain in the ass, but can you sign up and vote for Better Offline? I have never won an award in my life, so help me win this one.

What does it mean to canvas people to vote for you without any suggestion that you have - actually listened to the podcast?

Goes as far as to undermine the award if there's a suggestion you've received votes from people just because you were good at marketing people to vote for you. Seems to confuse savvy business practice with that of an award for merit.

Absolutely get this. And yes there's no doubt that a dedicated tool can bring features and a UX that's hard to replicate with a general purpose text editor with the same degree of polish, if at all in some cases. Some of the stuff in Obsidian does look compelling (shrug)!

I think what matters more is like you say - how the data is stored. It's been nice to see this convergence towards markdown and it's this that's seems the real sweet spot (or plain text, more generally). Separate the data from the logic and you're free to operate on your notes with whatever fits at the time, or even with different tools at the same time (on mobile, say).

Not news to many folk here on HN but a refreshing contrast to other PKM that use proprietary formats, often along with monthly subscription fees for what is essentially variations on "editing a plain-text database".

A folder of markdown docs in your favourite text editor, ftw!

+ It’s all within the editor you already know really well. Uses your existing tools.

+ Many editors have really good support for markdown built in. Treat H1’s like notes and along with modern fuzzy search for files/symbols you can easily get to any note and jump around.

+ If you want smarter [[liking]] there’s some good plugins out there to bring this to your editor.

+ Simple, future proof and no lock-in.

I’m currently enjoying markdown-oxide, an LSP for markdown docs. Captures all your notes as symbols so you can fuzzy search and “find references”, etc. supports #tags, too.

Personally I've never discovered anything on Gumroad itself. It's always been from some other source (here on HN, reddit, social media) and then followed a link to Gumroad.

Payments and shipping are precisely the kinds of things that could act as services directly to the creator itself. I thought that was somewhat the point of his conclusion - put these services directly in the hands of the creator.

Otherwise Gumroad is just acting as a payment + shipping wrapper. And if they're replacing what service they had left with AI, what value-add is left exactly?

Right. Somewhat burred the lede. My take was that the value that services like Gumroad can bring is precisely the value-add they provide over what a create could do themselves. So if the CEO has chosen to essentially automate the entire business by replacing staff with AI, then what value-add is left exactly?

Better then to watch out for middlemen that "extract value rather than add it" and empower creators to host things themselves. Thought that was a nice observation.

Ironically, I always thought that was somewhat the point of Gumroad (short of self-hosting). Are they on to enshittification Stage II?

Same. But a nice observation in conclusion

> To me, I think that there is a real opportunity to take away the reins from middlemen who extract value rather than add it by leaning into things we host ourselves. Creators, for too long, have given too much power away to the company that made our lives mildly more convenient. If they’re trying to optimize to the nubs, destroying quality of service in the process, why even bother letting them have a lane in the middle?

I'll bite.

Suppose an imaginary private buyer was willing to buy the Crown Jewels for £5 billion. It's absurd to believe that the Royal Family would even entertain such an offer because (a) it's not like they would be incentivised by the money and (b) it would be a remarkable act of self-harm to the extent the deal would be so shockingly unpopular that it would only serve to threaten the Royal Family itself. So why on Earth would they agree to that? Responding "OK, how about £10 billion?" does nothing to resolve that calculus. In that sense, no price exists for which they could be sold - they are literally priceless.

The idea they "are worth between 3 and 5 billion pounds" is so daft that I'm pretty sure you just got that from ChatGPT.

Actually for fun i just asked: I got a material valuation of the stones at "several billion pounds if assessed purely by their material worth" (so about the same as your claim), but that "their true worth is incalculable".

What's another word for a price that's incalculable?

Right. And if a beholder beholds something with value that simply cannot be captured in a tradeable form (since to have a price implies it is tradable and For Sale) then no price exists for which a trade could exist. It would be literally priceless.

I'm surprised I seem to be in the minority in disagreeing with the idea that "everything has a price", as if it's just a matter of finding a number high enough.

A price that is unknown is simply "unpriced".

Every sale is between two parties, the price is simply any agreed value that would result in a sale. So it's not just what someone is willing to pay, but also what someone is willing to sell for. If both those ranges don't overlap, no sale.

I would argue a better definition of priceless is one in which no value could ever be discovered for which a sale could exist. Not because it is too high, but because there are constraints to that price equation (as governed by both parties) that overlap in such a way as there is simply no solution.

Examples are obvious, but in the case of the the Crown Jewels, they are priceless because of their identity and their inseparable significance to the United Kingdom. There is no price for which decision makers could agree on and keep their jobs (or their head), to the extent that a sale could ever exist. In the eyes of the public, the Monarchy itself would be at stake. In that sense the Crown Jewels are priceless, literally without price.

If this painting were genuine i don't think there's anything that would stop the seller from being able to agree on a price that would enable them to sell it.

I considered that before posting, and I disagree.

The Crown Jewels are genuinely priceless. Yes, “priceless” is common hyperbole, but the BBC claim to integrity and quality reporting just made me think that they might consider a more accurate title.

We’ve come so far in normalising casual mis-reporting that this argument even needs to be backed up.

Title: Window cleaner in quest to confirm priceless Shakespeare portrait

Later in article:

> if it were proven to be the prolific playwright, it could be worth "anywhere from £100m to £200m".

Well done BBC. I still remember when you were different.

If all these tools do is wipe out all the tedium in software then we are all laughing. Happy days to come.

There are tools and then there are the people holding the tools. The problem is no-one really knows which one AI is going to be.

My dog solved it in less than 14 minutes, no pen or paper, and no fingers.

Seriously though, nice work.

So in the three hours between you reading the puzzle in the parent comment, you stopped what you were doing, managed to get some other "random" person to stop what they were doing and spend half an hour of their time on a maths puzzle that at that point prior experience suggested could take a day? All within three hours?

That's not to say that you didn't, or you're recalling from a previous time that happens to be this exact puzzle (despite there being scant prior references to this puzzle, and precisely the reason for using it). But you can see how some might see that as not entirely credible.

Best guess: this random person is someone that really likes puzzles, is presumably good at them and is very, very far from being representative to the extent you would require to be in support of your argument.

Read: just a heavy flex about puzzle solving.

Last comment, promise.

I think there may even be an argument that a stance like this can do more damage than good. It may actually normalize the view that it's sufficient to promote on social media but ultimately take no action. There's a danger of furthering a sense of complacency where we want to do the right thing, but where sufficiency in "the right thing" has been normalized down to a grumble and a tweet rather than to actually take real action at any real personal cost.

Alternatively put, if everyone else doesn't do the hard bit, why should I?

Consider real leadership that makes the hard choices and leads by example. You see a friend step up against something at cost to them, and it's that what motivates you to join them. Leading by example is what motivates people.

I think it would have been so much more effective if Jeff returned the dishwasher. People see that personal cost and it _means something_. Otherwise why bother? I mean, that's what Jeff does, right?

I'll add that the fact that this article is already "22 hours ago" and is now largely now in the past somewhat proves the point. Attention has already moved on, actual opportunity to lead by example avoided and the cycle continues. And companies know this, which is why such practices are on the rise (the real evidence).

Yes, his replies in a neighbor comment is exactly to that effect and of course one has to agree. But it is also notable that if i dare summarise from his parallel comment, he would have loved to return the dishwasher too but that this has already cost him so much time that “I don't know if I have the time for it.”

So here's the thing. It would be unfairly cynical to suggest that Jeff is only doing this to further his own content as a content creator. I think most would agree that Jeff is also frustrated by this and wants to push back. And as someone with influence any impact he can make is undoubtedly a good thing. It's even easier to say nothing at all.

But it is also hard to separate out to what degree the motivation to put in the effort to write an article, produce and edit a video stems from the desire for content and what stems for the desire for real change. It is somewhat telling that he had the time and motivation to produce the video (which is also a ton of work), but not to return the dishwasher?

Real advocacy has to go beyond influencers promoting causes that already align with their target audience. We have to go beyond just saying things on social media in the belief that that is somehow sufficient to "do our bit". Otherwise we can kid ourselves that we're doing good, when are we really, really? Real advocacy requires real change, and that's the hard bit.

Have to agree. The bottom line is that manufactures will continue to pull this trick as long as consumers keep buying. Even Jeff himself says that

> I don't think we should let vendors get away with this stuff.

But he _did_ let the vendor get away with it. That’s exactly what he did. He even spent a significant part of the article anticipating the push back by trying to reason why in his case he felt justified in doing so (because he’s busy, because he couldn’t wait a few days hand washing, because of family constraints), but presumably.. you shouldn’t?

So I don’t get it. It’s precisely the “do as I say, not as I do” that we have this problem. There is an immediate benefit to the saying part, on social media, the social signalling, etc (especially immediate for a YouTuber), but not so much for the doing part.

And I say that as largely a supporter, Jeff Geerling seems to be one of the good guys. Which I guess is why we are where we are?

A fork? Oh my.

I hesitate to install a community fork of an open-source browser. I am constantly amazed at how casually trusting people are of software.

> Red light detection needs to be better

I’m sure it’s fine.

Yes, one has to pay attention and it’s still you in control. The problem is that it very much invites you not to, so there’s a jarring disconnect.

And like your experience it can be brilliant for 10,000 miles, but if it bugs out on the 10,001’st in a way you didn’t expect (worse, since you now have 10,000 miles of experience and might think you “know” it now) are you still alert enough to handle it? Otherwise it doesn’t matter how good the experience is on the first 10,000 miles if causes an accident on the 10,001’st.

Thanks. I guess given the target market you’re just supposed to know that, I’ll accept that.

Cool that that exists. I’m actually surprised that car manufactures support opening up control like that. Or is this essentially a private interface for implementers; how much are end-users supposed to be messing around with internals like this?

I’ll maintain that as someone that is largely ignorant in this space their website did little to give me confidence that they care about these kinds of questions. That maker’s attitude works for a gadget that drives around your lawn, but jars with reality at 60 mph.