crazygringo

Amazing. I'd LOVE for you to expand it, to also auto-dismiss "Foo.app would like to access data from other apps."

Adobe programs ask for this every time they start, and Claude Code randomly asks me this daily out of nowhere. It doesn't matter how many times I click "Don't Allow", it never gets remembered. (But of course if I ever mistakenly click "Allow" even once, that gets remembered for eternity and I never get asked again...)

Not really sure what the point is in posting some ancient policy from 2008, almost two decades ago?

Policies change and evolve. What would be more notable would be if they didn't.

And in this case, I'm not surprised at all. Trying to be the arbiter of what is considered common place names feels like a thankless and ultimately impossible task. If I were Google, I would quickly give up on that as well and simply follow official sources.

Don't like it? Then vote for the other guy next election. That's what living in a democracy is about. If anything, sticking to government names gives people even more reason to vote for the other party next election. The more people who get exposed to these dumb name changes on Google Maps, the better.

Not really sure how it's any less dystopian than blinking at a screen 2 feet away on your desk, as people have been doing for decades?

To be honest, it feels a lot less dystopian to me. Frees up your body so you can easily alternate between sitting and standing, and move between environments or inside/outside a lot easier.

Like, it's technology adapting itself to our bodies, instead of trying to adapt our bodies to technology by hunching over and developing neck strain and bad backs.

But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference for all knowledge.

Thus, it draws the line at things and people that are notable.

Maybe you think it shouldn't be an encyclopedia, but should be some larger project that indexes every product UPC, every person born, and every website ever registered, but that's not what it is.

And the primary obstacle here isn't storage. It's quality. You need a sufficient number of eyeballs and editors per page to ensure that the crowdsourcing is actually passing a minimal quality bar. Millions of short, low-quality articles means millions of opportunity for spam, abuse, and other problems.

Fair enough! I'm lucky enough not to use Teams, I've heard the horror stories but I had no idea it was that bad.

I think the subject here is broader UX latency, measured in hundreds of milliseconds to multiple seconds.

I've been using computers for over 40 years now, and I've never been impacted by the latency between keypress and letter rendering in my life except for on e-ink. That's not something I see anybody complaining about.

No, latency hasn't gotten worse.

It just hasn't gotten better.

Fundamentally, whenever latency gets too bad, developers fix it. But often not until then. So it always just kind of sits there at the edge of just-barely-tolerable. Which is defined by human behavior, not chip speed or similar.

I remember iTunes in the 2000's taking several seconds to respond to user actions. I remember using software like PageMaker in the 1980's that would take forever to respond. Lotus Notes in the 1990's was horrible. Running antivirus would slow your system to a crawl. Other stuff from the 2000's -- Acrobat Reader, or Outlook.

It's always been an issue with apps on the computer.

Oh, I certainly have. In fact, I had to give me kind of a three hour crash course afterwards when I needed to figure out what kind of further optimization was most likely to work.

But that was still to answer very targeted questions that I would never have been able to ask on my own in the first place without months of study.

And when we are talking about the speed up from LLM's, we are generally comparing to a world without LLM's. Not to some mythical world where LLM's are able to teach us about anything but not actually able to write the code or find the technical solutions themselves.

I am a huge fan of having LLM's teach me what I need to properly guide them in domains that are outside my expertise. It's kind of funny when you think about it. A really big part of learning how to be productive with Claude is indeed trying to find precisely the areas where you yourself, not only provide value, but provide irreplaceable value.

But in this case, most people really truly don't have an issue with it.

It's a very small minority who cares.

I mean, it was about changing the size of the certain layers of the model in order to fine-tune with the new shape.

I am entirely sure that it would have taken me many months to figure out that that was the actual thing that needed to change. It wasn't just some kind of tooling configuration issue. It required a deep understanding of the size of every single different layer of the model and how they fed into each other.

I recently needed to adjust an existing open source model for an app that I am building, to get it to work in a certain way. I have no background in machine learning.

Claude was able to identify the approach that worked, and even the long Python command that was needed. In, yes, probably about 10 seconds.

For me to figure that out myself, it probably would've taken something like a year of study. Of the entire stack of machine learning and all of the Python tooling associated with it.

That's where these absolutely incredible astonishing speedups come from.

Because it's one thing for Claude to be able to write code 20 times faster than I can. But it's a whole other thing when it is able to create things in domains that I know nothing about at all. That would take me one or more years to become an expert in. But where I can still just verify its results, so I don't need to be an expert in order to judge the quality or suitability. If the end product works, the end product works.

I have similarly had it come up with mathematical formulas that would probably have taken me a year in going back to studying math if I had to derive them myself. But where it is trivial to show that they are producing the correct output for known test cases.

So trying to come up with some kind of factor multiplier here almost kind of falls apart. It might as well be infinite. Because these are things that I just wouldn't have done otherwise. The software wouldn't have gotten built because I would have had to hire somebody else to do it, and there was no budget for that.

Yeah I'm aware it's hit-or-miss. But I use it in Infuse, which is a third-party app that supports it, even with its own framework.

Yes, this is standard. And the point is performance. The needs of user-facing ID's (short alphanumeric, randomly ordered) tend to be pretty orthogonal to the needs of internal ID's (raw bits, monotonically increasing, maybe timestamp data).

It kind of lives on, on the Apple TV remote.

You know that ring around the main button, that kind of functions like a D-pad with four arrows?

If you're paused while watching something, you can drag your finger clockwise or counter-clockwise around the ring to seek forwards or backwards. It's really nice, much finer-grained control than normal skipping forwards or backwards.

The wheel doesn't actually spin, but it also doesn't really need to.