kevindamm

It's more than an implementation detail. With an intermediate step of source code compiling & linking, there is a mechanical process checking for well-formedness that would otherwise be skipped. This is especially important if you're editing a large codebase, which even your agent's private-only repo would benefit from.

There are also times when you want the final product to be able to target different architectures and platforms. Generating into a higher level language allows for re-targeting the code by only changing a few compiler & linker flags or runtime/environment config. I would much rather that than hoping the LLM is feature- (and bug-)compatible between generation runs.

You specifically said "digital" in GGP comment. I took that to mean that you were choosing the abstraction above which those details matter. Yes, at the physical level all circuitry is effectively continuous and stochastic. Analog circuitry is the manipulation of these to give a more continuous state, digital circuitry uses voltage ranges and a forbidden middle to enforce a kind of noise immunity. When you dig deep enough that the noise is a point of concern, you are no longer looking at a digital Boolean.

Just making sure we're being super pedantic.

The same assumptions are true about giving any human that shareable link. They could pass it on to anyone, screenshot it, paste it into their own session. This has been true since before "share with link" permissions on Docs and elsewhere.

If you click "provide a shareable link" you should decide (and behave) as though that made it public.

I'm not saying it's good privacy posture on the side of the companies, but how else do you think that would work if there isn't any authentication step for the person viewing it? Even with authentication, "three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

Not quite.. that boolean is about whether the voltage exceeds some threshold. It's not about how close the voltage is to the circuit's maximum possible threshold, or how much it exceeds the threshold.

In an analog circuit, maybe.

An AI assistant can give different answers for the same inputs. An application written by an AI assistant, if it doesn't just call an LLM at runtime, will mostly likely produce the same answer for the same inputs. That is, unless there's something intrinsic to its business logic that makes it nondeterministic.

Sometimes you really want the latter even if the former is less effort.

They are different -- higher level languages like C++ and Python surface the abstractions, making them more apparent to the human reading the code. LLMs typically hide the abstractions. You can still read the source code, sure, but even the latest models will produce a lot of repetition of utility functions and produce data structures of various shapes without commonality or reuse. This is moving in the opposite direction that machine code -> assembly -> C -> ... were heading.

Prioritizing something other than 7% week over week growth. This doesn't appeal as much to venture capitalists so we may have to try it with some bootstrapped products first.

Having seen the abuse vectors that get thrown at this and similar products, I suspect it is less about whether they care and more about finding a suitable threshold for some arbitrary features, or moments of demand exceeding the available moderators. The repetitive 6 minutes make me suspect there are reports timing out in the moderator queue and the automod doesn't like images or something.

Or, perhaps a part of the process that is two or three teams away, like photo attachments being deemed too large (getting passed from Maps UI through internal task queues to some abuse analysis, or even as early as the frontends that take the request). Plausible, especially as phone photos have steadily increased in size while some thresholds remain ossified.

I'm outside that world now so I can't investigate or effect change.. there used to be people there who care about these things. I suspect there still are.

Even more likely is that other priorities exceed the capacity of the headcount on the relevant teams. I don't know if that counts as the company not caring. It's hard to attribute intent on corporate-scale embodiments. Perhaps that's the root of the problem, I wonder if any collective that reaches hundreds of thousands of members can ever exhibit that. Maps is a huge product that a small competitor could hardly compete with but I'd love to be proved wrong (either on the smallness or considerateness aspects).

Kind of, but not really.. though there are simple models with electrons as a point charge, a more accurate model involves the electron field describing the probability of an electron existing at any region in space (not to be confused with the electromagnetic field, the medium in which photons propagate).

I think they're referring to the Enterprise sales where people have felt pressured to sign six- or seven- figure contracts after usage goes above a certain point. However, all the articles I've read on it are from companies using Cloudflare to do suspicious things with rotating domains through IP addresses, or doing things to try and get around service costs. It also seems like they give you months of warning and will try to convince you to sign up for Enterprise, they don't just shut things off. But their sales team seems to portray themselves as legal, support, or compliance teams sometimes so not exactly forthcoming in their approach either.

I'm a happy user of Cloudflare, but if you're using it for domain registration and hosting infrastructure, you need to see it as a single point of failure. Any account issues and you won't be able to point your domain to an alternate host while you work things out. Any service outage in CF systems will similarly lock you out of routing around the failure. It's better to have DNS off of cloudflare if they're handling your hosting services also. Or host elsewhere and only handle domains on cloudflare. Their domain pricing doesn't add any costs over the base registrar cost, so the latter is a reasonable option.

It doesn't have to imply replacement. Do you stop thinking just because other humans can?

If you're suggesting that the different columns of a comptometer would relate to different rotational axes of the ball, you will likely run into gimbal lock in 3D.

You could build an interface in 4D around quaternions but that is much more complicated than my suggestion (even including the part where you learn morse code).

The quoted part of my comment is in reference to the core topic of TFA where iOS and Nothing/Android photo apps handle the "pressed again during rotation" action differently. That "rotate the typewriter ball" interface runs against the same problem, by necessity of rotating a physical ball.