brightstep

I’ll have ideas on my own time. On the clock, I’m happy to delegate that when appropriate.

I'm especially interested in how this can be applied to the world of the game. I think that creates much more interesting results than NPCs who can hold dynamic conversation. Imagine an MMO where quests you complete actually shape the world (its landscape, structures and enemies). Then dynamic quests can be created based on the new world, creating a living loop.

Totally agree about the chat interface. I like to say it’s “infinitely powerful and infinitely confusing.” A dangerous combination. And, arguing with myself, I think it’s fair to say the code is AN object of our attention, if not THE object. A common metaphor being applied to agentic coding is the invention of power tools. If AI is the drill, and the goal is a house, then the code is the framing.

> A tool is not meant to be the object of our attention; rather the tool should reveal the true object of our attention (the thing the tool acts upon), rather than obscuring it

I think this is true of AI agents. What is the object of our engineering attention? Applications, features, defect resolution. Not code.

They have a monolith but struggle with individual subsystem failures bringing down the whole thing. Sounds like they would benefit from Elixir’s isolated, fail-fast architecture.

That’s true, and it’s still more reliable for useful information than the top results on Google.

> I was being exposed to engineering concepts that just weren't a thing in agency work: unit testing, CI/CD, git hygiene, release management.

As someone who’s worked at an agency that’s grown from twenty engineers to hundreds over the last five years, what? Even when we were small and scrappy we still wrote unit tests…

It won’t be only for the disadvantaged.

“Tending bar” puts more emphasis on what one might argue is the more important part of the phrase. No one is there for the tender. Consider versus “woodworking”: you want the work, not the hunk of wood.

Both. Unknowingly usually means uncaringly. And the FDA clearly has duty to thoroughly test products.

We need a publicly funded body whose purpose is to issue grants for firms to reproduce scientific findings. A scientific reproduction corps. Extra can be awarded for finding flawed/fraudulent research. This would create a community of organizations that counter-balance industry incentives and instill trust in our scientific process.

Activation via Pegasus spyware will not be overt

Would you still have, if you knew the strings that would come attached? Tracking your every move? Enabling governments to surreptitiously snoop on your audio and camera? Constant exposure to experiences designed to addict and immiserate you?

It’s not always possible to have a personal laundry machine available. Is it too much to ask that the machines also accept a credit card scanned in-person?

The solution is trust. Crowd sourced reviews are junk because you don’t know who wrote them, what their intentions are, or if they are in any way qualified (whatever that means to you) to review a book. With well known and trusted reviewer, you understand their biases and can adjust accordingly.