Alacart

How do you square that with this quote in the article?

"The data showed that the age-adjusted incidence rate fell from 55.2 per 100,000 in 2000 to 36.7 in 2022, then rose to 38.3 in 2023."

Were more people fat back in 2000? Was the food worse? Though I don’t really doubt that the food industry and trends like you mentioned do contribute, that stat also seems to directly contradict the hypothesis.

Imagine how immensely well looked-upon they would be now if they had come public about it, with a long term transition plan. Imagine a world where executives had that kind of courage.

Sorry, you’re right, I did.

What does this have to do with Linux? I want more control for individuals, not less.

Do you really think LLMs will only belong to 2 or three companies in the future, when we already have fairly competitive open weights usable from home (or rented servers)? How would this be anything but the opposite of centralization amongst 2 or 3 companies, which is already the case now? Software has always been displacing things, especially itself.

Maybe some day this will be the basis but not the complete solution. Agreed that there’s a lot of semi intangible art that goes into browser engine decisions. I’m guessing a lot of which have to do as much with people and current landscape dynamics as they do with the tech.

Maybe over time the specs will become more machine readable (bounded and concrete) if we take these paths. Although in some sense everything is machine readable these days, just not deterministically so (less helpful for specs, but not nothing either).

Your second point makes a lot of sense to me too. I’m not sure how this could handle that facet of human nature, except possibly to indirectly contribute to speeding up the cycle of spec creation.

I guess my hope is that while this may be the case now, perhaps it won’t be eventually. If you can generate from a spec, different implementations may be slower or worse in a variety of ways but still meet the spec.

At that point it’s about optimizing and deciding trade offs, both of which might mean heavily directing the generation in some way. Over time, maybe LLMs or whatever succeeds them won’t go down so many bad architectural paths. We’ve certainly seen that already in the last year or two.

I also don’t think folks like you ever lose your value in these efforts, even if all of it came true tomorrow. At worst it would be you plus the AI, which would always be a more potent combination than say, me with an AI trying to make a browser engine.

This makes a ton of sense to me with the huge corpus of web standards that exist. In theory we should be able to generate a browser from those specs, it just took a massive amount of effort before. Maybe if things like this get some traction, some of the human time spent implementing the spec could be spent on creating more/better specs, allowing for even better generation too.

Edit: replies are making good points about AI capabilities and where the effort really goes. Let’s just say that I meant this in an aspirational sense, rather than where the rubber actually meets the road today.

> asking me during the test to explain what LLM output meant.

Perhaps (sarcastically) this is the new approach, because this is now the point where they’re forced to struggle and therefore actually learn. An exam every other day, let them ask the questions.

I generally believe that, but there is such a thing as “too far”.

Your (I’m assuming well intentioned) arguments are those that people abusing power trot out whenever it suits them, because it works so well to get them off the hook when the people they’re abusing are decent human beings. “Now that we’ve tried our best to destroy things, don’t you think it’s important we all forgive and forget?”

I also think you’re taking my point to mean punishing republican voters, which I’m not. I’m talking about upholding and enforcing laws against the politicians and their accomplices in the party, as they’re intended to be. Rather than taking the less confrontational path of letting it all slide after they lose power. That’s how this mess started in the first place.

It’s a good thing that they’ve committed many blatant and easily provable criminal acts then. The type you spend the rest of your life in prison for, if you’re not being protected by captured systems. Market manipulation, insider trading, embezzlement are all happening obviously and publicly, just to start. Bribery and corruption at many levels, illegal use of things like ICE, illegal detention, ignoring and abusing courts and the judicial system, whatever the hell they’re doing with crypto, the list is basically whatever crime you can think of. I understand you, and that it will mean republicans and their base won’t be swayed, which will create huge problems. But we’re well past the point that anything would ever sway them. There’s no easy way out now, the choice is being increasingly abused by them forever or taking the hits now to stop it. Pulling punches now will only ensure that it comes back 10x worse later.

I think you’re being disingenuous and deliberately trying to refocus the conversation on something else now.

He literally said “if you vote for me, you won’t need to vote again”. It’s not an ambiguous statement and doesn’t require extra context. Everything else you said didn’t really have anything to do with it.

I think at that point founder taste comes in. “Strong opinions loosely held” comes to mind, in that you should already have some pretty strong ideas about where you want your product to go. Otherwise why build it? or maybe, why you specifically?

Being open to being wrong and course correcting when enough people tell you so is the loosely held part.