catapart

there's some weird hang ups in English that you have to be cautious of, though.

"Hmm. Not sure. Maybe google it?" is pretty innocuous no matter the context.

"Hmm. Not sure. Maybe look it up?" can sound dismissive or condescending in some cases to some people's ear.

It's a weird quirk of English where being non-specific is like saying "I don't know, you figure it out", where being very specific is like saying "Here's the solution (that I would use)".

For me it's the name[0]. map puts out an array that has been mapped from another array. filter puts out an array that is a filter of the input array. both of those are always true. reduce, on the other hand, may put out a reduction of the input array (probably most of the time), but the fact that it may not means that what is happening is not actually a reduction. In languages like js/ts, you don't even have to return anything of the same type as the input array's elements. You could literally "reduce" and array of integers to a cancellation token, or a state object, or anything else.

I realize it's not the most efficient way to work, but I like my code to read like instructions. There's nothing reduce will do that a for loop won't accomplish and the for loop (+ an accumulator, of course) is more clearly "readable" than reduce. If I read map, I know what's going on. If I read filter, I know what's going on. If I read reduce, I have to figure out what's going on, even if I'm pretty sure what is going on. If I could rely on reduce to always give me back an element of the input array, I would use it more. But since it can give back anything, I prefer the simplicity of a for loop.

[0] I don't have any suggestions for "better" names because the whole operation is hard to sum up in a word? "dispatch" makes sense, as a function dispatching a function over each element in an array, but it masks the concept of accumulation from return values. "transform" is accurate, but hardly descriptive at all. the list goes on. It's an undeniably useful little function, it's just hard to make it easy to understand and therefore debug.

My comment is about how inference and implication can change the result of a message just as much as the content or context. Whatever axe you've got to grind about threats being bad has nothing to do with what I said. Laws are threats. Unions make threats. So what? My point stands. Things that are obviously threats are threats, and things that say the same things in different ways might not be threats.

It's an implied threat, which you can infer from the presentation of the information. For example:

You really should listen to me. If you need some time to think it over, I understand. It's a lot to consider and you've got a lot in your plate. I'll check in soon - would tomorrow be okay? If you need more time, just tell me when.

vs

You really should listen to me. I'll give you a day to think it over before I take further action.

Same information, but the latter assumes a position of authority (I, the person in charge, will be the provider of the time you will receive), and then uses that position to provide an ostensible benevolence as a way to mitigate the implied follow up of non-benevolence. The threat is introduced as the power disparity. The person in power has leverage over the less powerful and the threat is that they will use it. Remove the power disparity, and the implication of threat is also removed.

Awesome! It's really cool that it uses public domain images as the inspiration, too. And even cooler that you link to the places where you got those public domain images.

I'm not trying to sell the technology at all, much less as a messiah, and I absolutely have a negative view of it. It's a token predictor - nothing more, nothing less. If you treat it like it is supposed to "make sense" of things, you get predictably bad results. It "makes sense" that if you don't make the sense for it, it will do poorly, because it's a glorified auto-complete.

same. none of the available prompts are what I would prompt claude with and I get way better results than this. makes sense to me why the provided prompts result in the simulated outcomes. garbage in, garbage out.

I feel like I can almost see the shape of this, but that it's still very blurry for me. Seems like it could be used for some cool stuff, but I can't quite make out what. Procedural generation? Shader effects? Beyond the more important physical stuff they describe in the article, seems like there's some potential for fun with this?

Seems good! I'd migrate some of my open source projects, but they utilize the public static page hosting features of GitLab and GitHub, since they are typescript libraries that are demonstrated in the browser, so I'm reluctant to upset that.

As others have said: great article! I did find myself wanting them to get to the point, but once they started describing the bug and the fix, it was very satisfying. I'm very happy there are companies out there on the frontiers of functionality not only funding fixes and debugging measures, but taking the time to write up the details so we can all benefit.

Tailscale just moved up in my priorities list. Was going to host my next website with hostinger, but now I'm going to at least try to run a personal server with tailscale to make it public. I might not be able to figure it all out, and may end up going with the VPS route, but this gave me some appreciation for the company that makes me willing to try the less familiar method.

I'm also a fan of maker! Good shout. Though, I will say, I tend to see "maker" and "creator" as pretty interchangeable. Right up until the point of saying "content maker". That...doesn't feel right.

If nothing else, this blog post certainly invites scrutiny over how much feelings affect what classifications feel comfortable.

I can certainly understand that, but I don't lend any specialness to anything I do, which may be why I don't consider any of it as needing to be differentiated for its craft. It's very useful to be specific when going in to specifics, but it seems very pedantic to be specific when I'm being general or broad. It might stem from just having so many different areas of interest. Feels braggadocios to keep chiming in with "I do that too", when I could just cover everything with "I create various types of content".

Though, I will admit that I never include cooking in that. Food, for some reason, has never felt, to me, like "content". Can't say I've ever interrogated why.

I'm with you. I would prefer to be known as a "content creator" rather than a "woodworker" or "game developer" or "illustrator" or "writer" or "musician". Especially because all of that work tends to overlap all of the time. It feels so limiting to be described by a singular part of what I do. And I'm neurotic enough to want a 'comprehensive' word, rather than to slash myself to death in a description.

I don't particularly like the term "content creator". It feels too blunt and sterile to be particularly useful. But it does seem to be generally useful in how wide-reachingly descriptive it is.

I'm also curious about this.

Sweet! I was just looking for something like this, this past weekend. Lots of command line stuff, but not much in the way of GUI apps. Excited to check this out! Thanks!