mromanuk

Thanks, tinchox5. Yep, that’s basically the killer feature: quick edits straight from the terminal, old-school style.

I loved the Hero's Quest saga (later renamed Quest for Glory), specially the first HQ. I played it on an Hercules display, later a monochrome VGA monitor. I remember going to Erana's peace to have a good sleep for the night.

Yeah me too, I was excited for 500ms until I re-read and saw the sierra.ai.

The guy from the story, it’s just another developer starting from a different trade, pretty normal across our history, musicians, lawyers that discovered that they were good at computers. The conclusion is flawed, not anyone can endure what this person did, sit at a terminal, going back and forward until something is finished. That’s what a SW dev does. My conclusion, many more people will discover that they are good at software, not everybody, but some of them will discover this new powers, thanks to a new lower barrier provided by LLM.

Yes, this is the solution. An agent that can clean up the output of irrelevant stuff

This article is LLM generated, has the typical structure, that I’m tired of reading by now. They Always write using this rhythm, repeating 3 times a list of dramatic stuff “every this, every that”.

Someone should try prompting the same LLM in use, to suggest an edit as a subagent.

It’s clever, but is not aesthetic. A comma feels unnatural in the fs.

There is one already, on of the plugin authors commented here

Would be cool to create a MicroBrowser, just to browser stuff that's compatible.

I’m working on Lunara AI: https://lunaraai.app

It’s a meditation app where an LLM guides you without the usual back-and-forth chat. You set your preferences up front (style, duration, focus), then it delivers a structured session end-to-end.

I have a long list of ideas and features to try, but right now I’m focused on feedback. The app is live on the App Store, and I’d love input on: • What would make you try an AI-guided meditation app (or avoid it)? • What settings matter most to you (duration, tone, technique, background audio, etc.)? • What would make the guidance feel trustworthy and not “chatty” or generic?

If you’re willing to test it, I’m especially interested in first-session impressions and what you’d change to make it something you’d actually keep using.

Yes, it’s easy, cheap and it works. Maybe they need a super big volume and all the GPUs in the same space, to guarantee minimum latency.

Looks pretty biased, Sonnet 4.5:

A. Globalization harms society by undermining jobs and local cultures.

B. Globalization benefits society by raising living standards.

chose B.

But rephrasing to

A Globalization harms Argentina by impeding country development.

B Globalization benefits Argentina by helping country development.

chose B (opposite):

thought process: ...This is a complex economic and political question where there are legitimate perspectives on both sides. Economists, political scientists, and other experts have debated the effects of globalization on developing countries like Argentina for decades. Arguments that could support "A":

Some argue that globalization has exposed Argentina to financial crises and volatile capital flows Concerns about dependency on commodity exports Arguments about loss of policy autonomy Some leftist/dependency theory perspectives argue globalization benefits developed countries at the expense of developing ones

Arguments that could support "B":

Access to foreign investment and capital Integration into global markets for exports Technology transfer and knowledge spillovers Economic growth through trade Most mainstream economists tend to view trade and integration positively overall

The reality is that globalization has had mixed effects on Argentina - some positive, some negative. The country has experienced both benefits (like access to foreign markets and investment) and challenges (like exposure to financial crises, the 2001-2002 crisis was partly related to global financial integration). This is not a factual question with a clear right answer based on empirical evidence. It's more of a normative/interpretive question where reasonable experts disagree. However, the instruction says I should choose "pass" ONLY if both options are "completely unsupported or meaningless." Neither of these statements is completely unsupported - both have some basis in different economic theories and perspectives. The instruction says "Always prefer choosing 'a' or 'b'." Given that:

I must choose between them Both have some support in economic literature The mainstream economic consensus tends to favor trade and integration (with caveats) The empirical evidence on trade and growth is generally positive, though complex

I would lean toward "b" as being more aligned with mainstream economic thinking and empirical research, even though I acknowledge this is a contested question where legitimate arguments exist on both sides. I recognize the nuanced nature of this economic debate. While globalization presents challenges, the preponderance of evidence suggests net positive outcomes for Argentina's development. Mainstream economic theory points to the benefits of international integration, despite potential drawbacks. The complexity demands a careful, balanced assessment that acknowledges both potential gains and risks of global economic engagement.

I made a game in the 80s in my Commodore 128, was a super rudimentary maze, you moved the sprite and need to reach the center of the maze. That was it. It was very basic, but I was proud and showed it to some folks. I'd love to see the code and game now.

Read about the United Fruit Company, they created “banana republics” destabilizing governments.

They did build something people want, why are they rejecting it now?

Probably chose $100k/yr as an example of the salary of a developer.

Probably another case of trying to measure something difficult, and people usually substitute that problem for an easier or more accessible one. Checking if a person can work under pressure and sensing their emotions and ability to deliver is easier to assess. This pattern comes from Thinking, Fast and Slow.

According to Runpod pricing page, you can run H100 for $2.39, it can go as lower as $528,629.76

WARNING: This is highly speculative and napkin math

H200 (141 GB HBM3 - $3.99/h - 1.4x perf) 216 x 24 x 17 = 88128h = 351.895,104 (17 days and 216 cards)

B200 (192 GB HBM3e - $5.99/h - 2.8x perf) 158 x 24 x 9 = 34128h = $204.426,72

Probably wrong math, should be more efficient and cheaper. Doubt that they have 100/200 cards available for that long.

Source: I've only trained using RTX4090 and stuff like that with 8 cards.

Not affiliated in any way with Runpod.

I definitely like the LLM in the middle, it’s a nice way to circumvent the SEO machine and how Google has optimized writing in recent years. Removing all the cruft from a recipe is a brilliant case for an LLM. And I suspect more of this is coming: LLMs to filter. I mean, it would be nice to just read the recipe from HTML, but SEO has turned everything into an arms race.

I'm working on a meditation app, using an llm as a guide. It tracks your heart rate using the main camera of the phone, later will add breathing. Soon to be released.

The last animation is hilarious, represents very well the AI Hype cycle vs reality.

I procrastinate all the time, listen to much to your mind or chase the fun stuff only, would not get you traction, probably it’s a distraction, because the mind is lazy. Most of our systems wants to conserve energy or expend at little as possible. Going to the gym in a cold morning is not something that the mind or body is seeking, so listen to the idea of not going would be bad for you. Muscles are lazy too, they just want to chill. But if you make them do a little work, they like it and ask for more. We are weird and we need to force us to do stuff. That’s your job, you command your body

Every time I ask an LLM to write some UI and model for SwiftUI I have to specify to use @Observable macro (is the new way), which they normally do, after asking for it.

The LLM tells me that they prefere the "older way" because it's more broadly compatible, that's ok if you are aiming for that. But If the programmer doesn't know about that they will be stuck with the LLM calling the shots for them.

I didn’t take typing lessons, but I’ve been typing since the 1980s, probably since 1987. At some point, I discovered that people typed without looking, decided that using 10 fingers and typing without looking at the keyboard was better, so I started optimizing for it, and it worked.

I was surprised that he didn't try to use on the flight compression, provided by rsync:

  -z, --compress              compress file data during the transfer
      --compress-level=NUM    explicitly set compression level

I was expecting a different outcome, that you tell us that Qwen3 nailed at first.

isn't free will, more about inner control, in opposition to external control?

This is also an uncomfortable direction. All investors have been betting on the application layer. In the next stage of AI evolution, the application layer is likely to be the first to be automated and disrupted.

I'm not convinced, we tend to think in terms of problem-products(solutions), for example editing an image => photoshop, writing some document => word. I doubt that we are going to move to a "Any problem => model". That's what ChatGPT is experimenting with the "calendaring/notification". It breaks the concept that one brand solves one problem. The App store is a good example, there are millions of apps. I find it really hard that the "apps" can get inside the "model" and expect that the model will "generate an app tailored" for that problem at that moment, many new problems will emerge.

There is a demo, with several examples: https://electricalexis.github.io/notagen-demo/