rubyfan

/ot Hamburger menu at the bottom right is pretty nice too. Haven’t seen it there before but seems like a very user friendly choice for its placement.

I would attribute it to profit motive instead of either stupidity or malice.

This is marketing+. They will look for policy action here to try to capture tax payer dollars.

I don’t understand what is the primary innovation over other frameworks. In passing it looks like Express 10 years ago but maybe with some modernization and flexibility to leverage components from various other frameworks.

Why can’t it be both?

I love the concept here. The site and preannounce feels a little gimmicky. It’s definitely of the time but kind of hard to commit to without more detail. Like $25 isn’t a lot of money to reserve a real truck but seems like a lot for a maybe we’ll bring a real product to market.

Translator services usually get paid because they offer an accreditation or certification that the humans doing the translation are trained and are not randos / computers. I could imagine these services becoming marginally more efficient but no dramatically improving profits.

I think the market is discounting some of the AI driven growth or maybe pricing in the likelihood of a correction. Look at some of the blow out earnings recently where the market shrugs it off. To your point, many non-AI companies are now driven by AI spend that seems unlikely to be durable.

I’m not a pro here but to me it would seem like an AI crash would hit certain companies really hard (SpaceX, Oracle, NVDA, etc), most other might take a small correction to reset AI driven gains, and potentially some deflation.

If the AI game ends then suddenly there is a return to free cash flow from hyperscalers, some goods and utilities cost less and a lot of investment dollars need a place to eventually go.

You could see a scenario where the overall market keeps chugging and the AI crash ends up being a rotation.

Lots of people I work with seem to use Claude for things they should be learning or doing themselves. Stuff that really isn’t hard and if they took the time to learn themselves then they would be better at their job and more valuable.

Instead they are telling me that literally any other human could do their job and their only value is prompting a chat bot.

The thing is they aren’t even accelerating outcomes. Since they can’t be bothered to learn they pump out stuff that looks good but the detail that matters is trash and requires someone else to actually finish to an acceptable standard.

Sadly I have spent lots of time with ooxml and pdf and my experience suggests there really aren’t reliable means for dealing with seemingly simple changes.

I haven’t looked under the hood here but to make simple text replacement via command line is an LLM even required? A human driven command line tool to do basic substitution on batches of files reliably would be amazing.

In these examples cost of the solution does not generally scale with the use of the solution in the same way we see token use. In the case of LLMs the cost of use scales very differently than seat licensing.

Many corporations have found they have a new cost center drawing tens of millions or more with little direct evidence of productivity gain. Corporations are probably best positioned to either switch providers, leverage router solutions or at worst use the fact that they could to drive prices down from the proprietary providers.

This could be a prompt for cards against humanity… Zuckerberg’s Increasingly Bizarre _____

This is likely more an invite list than a membership list. Not defending it. But it's more like being a high profile, influential or powerful person and being invited to an exclusive conference than it is being a member of SPECTRE.

I’m not a historian but I think FCKEditor and TinyMCE predated contenteditable. These were solutions wrapping textarea back in the day if my memory serves me.

I think the practice of tying the use of one product to coerce the loss of rights of your private data has some comparables (noted below).

The law seems to recognize that companies coercing someone to give up money using tie-ins may be illegal but is not yet recognizing data as a monetary equivalent. Because it’s not money it’s not regulated.

Isn’t it time that our data be treated as the exchange of value that it is? And the coercion should be something we are protected against?

1. abuse of monopoly power in tie-in sales.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

2. Freebie marketing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor-and-blades_model

3. RESPA

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/real-estate-settlement-...

They would have to refund everyone for every purchase in the long run.

That is the minimum they should do. At best they should offer the movie collections for free through competitors.

Yes, Meta focusing on this type of research does set off alarm bells for me. I suspect this isn’t about some altruistic intention to help people with disabilities but something a little more surveillance oriented.

Next time it’ll be different though

I think you hit the nail on the head. In a winner take most society why would you expect the masses to embrace a technology that makes them losers?

That’s why it’s so perplexing as a consumer when AI gets pushed so hard as if it’s a feature. Consumers don’t care what code your devs use, what cloud platform you deploy on, so why should they care about AI in your product? AI is not a feature; features are features tell me about those.

Why does every exhibit made with AI look the same?

This was true 20 years ago (not sure about now). As an atheist/agnostic in basic training I used to try different church services to get away from the barracks on Sundays. If you didn’t you were definitely assigned some cleaning detail instead of having down time. At the time it didn’t come across as discrimination and felt more like a way to keep control. At various times when control was lax bad stuff happened, e.g. fighting, sex, awol, etc. In a new light this does seem like it has a disparate impact.

Yes it looks that way

At that level they call it financial engineering.

Right the intention was to stop unchecked surveillance capitalism, now they use the normalcy of annoyance to wear you down such that you auto accept terms that you probably wouldn’t agree to if you read them. That’s what they want now.

This and other bad behavior will only go away when government says, “no this is predatory and you can’t do it” instead of saying “everything is OK if the user consents to it”.

Surprise, they all are!

It wasn’t ever about illegal immigration. It’s a way to make the position sound logical and tolerable. Now the goal post is moving to make only certain people legal.

You make it sound like writing good requirements is easy.

I am certain I didn’t say that. To be a good product owner one needs skill, care and understanding of the business intent. If you know the business intent but lack the skill to express it as a useful requirement then it’s insufficient; if you have the skill but lack understanding or ability to understand the business intent then it’s insufficient; if you have the skill and understand the business intent but you are careless in your work then it’ll be insufficient too. If the problem space is emergent then having all three might not be good enough either.

It’s certainly true that good engineering teams can deeply understand the problem space enough to get to a business outcome without requirement documents.

I just wouldn’t bet that LLMs are going to make any of these realities any better, they might exacerbate those issues.

We now have product owners trying to farm out their work to an LLM. The process didn’t work before because the person writing the requirements either put out vague requirements or bad requirements because they didn’t understand the business intent (or were careless).

LLMs just take the same vague or poor requirements and make them look believable until you dig in to them.