atombender

Hi, I tried Juggler a few months back, and while it's technically impressive as a one-person product, I found it super stressful to use. It emits so much output and activity, in various nested forms.

Where Claude Code and Codex have made progress recently, I feel, is with sharpening the interactivity. For example, Codex will emit a lightweight ream of "thinking", then on completion it will erase this and only show the final, coherent answer. It doesn't show much detail about which commands it runs, either. You can still drill into that, but it's usually the least important thing. Claude also does sub/side-sessions that can talk to the other sessions. So if a session finds an unrelated, pre-existing bug, it can start an adjacent session for the bug fix, and keep abreast on when the fix lands. If you start a side session to do research, it can message the other session with new findings.

I don't know if Juggler is still like it was, but I strongly recommend making it less verbose. I just couldn't deal with the noise.

This is unnecessary whataboutism. The assertion I was addressing was "student-led revolutions have never produced a long-term positive outcome", not "all student-led revolutions have produced a long-term positive outcome".

It's human-facing.

Humans cannot be in the loop for autonomous work. I have agents review code and design/architecture documents, write alert messages based on rules, write analyses (e.g. outage incidents), and many other things. "Having a person write words" would mean not using agents, defeating the whole point.

I do not use agents to write on behalf of myself. I write my won technical write-ups and my own slide presentations. A lot of people don't; and it shows. There's much that agents can do better than humans now, but not everything.

Do you then recommend Sol for technical documentation?

What's confusing to me in addition to the naming is that there are no published guidelines I can use, as far as I can see. Put yourself in the user's shoes. On what basis should one pick a model for a given task?

I can understand smaller models being dumber and faster. That aligns well with scenarios where you are willing to compromise; e.g. you're classifying content or asking a model to format text into a table.

But when you want "maximum intelligence, cost and time be damned", there's the implication that bigger models are smarter on a linear scale, and every provider's model release naming is currently conflicting with that expectation.

This isn't just a naming problem, but a communication problem. If I knew that Astra was the best at coding but a bit bad at writing, and Sol was almost as smart but better at technical writing, then that's the kind of thing I expect to be documented.

One possible way: A simple matrix with horizontal columns like "writing", "coding", "math", rows are the models, and each box is a number of stars from 1-5.

Instead, this sort of thing becomes lore, shared by word of mouth.

OED, Merriam-Webster, and Collins all show a short "e", as in "delete" or "different", i.e. /dɪ/. I've never heard it pronounced as /diː/. Do you have some kind of southern drawl where you put the stress on the first syllable, like some people do with "defense"?

What amazes me is that people who write these articles must spend so little time reading them. Or are people just so blind to the quality of writing that they don't notice?

For the most part I do my own writing, because AI models aren't even close to reaching human quality. But for things like dynamically generated technical documentation or automated tasks (like summarizing the results of an automated anomaly investigation), where I cannot be in the loop, I find writing can be improved by asking for a specific style.

For example, if you ask for Simplified Technical English, we go from:

    Storing a lake as thousands of 1 MB Parquet files is a bad practice anyway, and 2.0 does not rescue it. Fundamentals still matter!

To:

    It is bad practice to store a data lake as thousands of 1 MB Parquet files. Version 2.0 does not correct this. The basic rules still apply.

Claude loves gerund phrases where the important stuff ("...is bad practice") is at the end, rather than the beginning ("it is bad practice to..."). But even if "x is y" is logically simpler, I think "it is y to x" is cognitively more intuitive to humans, especially for longer sentences where the x is a long explanation, because it mentally front-loads the topic under one heading: "bad: <stuff>" as opposed to "<stuff>: bad".

Claude's prose causes fatigue, I think, in part because the grammatical structure is at odds with how human cognition expects to be served information in their native language. But I also suspect that's a training thing. We've not grown up reading or writing like Claude.

Yep, agreed. I don't really understand why 1stdibs even exists, since I can't imagine anyone ever pays these prices. Chairing and Pamono (now owned by Chairish) also is generally inflated.

My go to sources are Selency, Vntg, Instagram, Catawiki, and then a bunch of online stores across Europe I've bookmarked, including auction sites like Bukowskis in Sweden. The smaller vintage stores are the ones to go to generally.

In Aliens, there is already a colony where they land. The colony has roads (the original prologue, which is in the special edition, shows Newt's dad driving a truck) and presumably a landing area.

In Alien, the planet landscape definitely is chaotic and hostile to landing, and indeed the crew's ship is damaged during landing.

No, but the courts seem to agree with them.

I use a frosted LED bulb and don't see any reason it would work better with an incandescent bulb, i.e. it works great.