tokenscoper

And not just for the person driving it, too.

As much as I'm all for human generated writing, coming across and having to read through mostly-LLM-generated writing is becoming the norm (at least for me, it's true). While I may not necessarily approve of the manner in which this was written, it was still something I wanted to know more about and I read it anyway.

It does bias me negatively towards the author, and makes me a little sad that people are choosing to not put more thought and effort into their writing, but this is a trend that is here to stay.

Making a big fuss about this hasn't gone anywhere from what I can tell, and it's unlikely that the outcome will be any different going forward.

For me, it was this part of the paragraph:

> There is no atlas, so a hundred thousand CJK glyphs cost a font's worth of outline data, not an atlas the size of a video. Text can change every frame at no baking cost, which is exactly what you want for live data, user input, and localized content. And it all happens in a single draw with an ordinary fragment shader, no vendor extension required.

Specifically, these sentence structures:

1. ... so <blah> costs <blah>, not <blah>.

2. And <blah>, no <blah>.

3. ... fixed resolution ahead of time, which quietly ...

> (MBR = monthly business report, pure bullshit theatre that drives the whole company mad 2/4 weeks every month)

Couldn't have said it any better myself having worked at AWS for close to 8y. I was there during their peak growth years and remember very well how some of these processes that were once not as maddening, devolved.

Policy engineering, satirically.

> but the engineers did not add a sufficiently thorough e2e test case to test the tool call against unrelated email verification attempts being provided to the tool call.

I'd go out on a limb to say the tests were likely AI generated. It's easy to miss a case like this one given that models like to generate a ton of test code that 'look' good at a glance but have subtle logic bugs that could potentially defeat the purpose of the test itself.

My own anecdata here, Claude generated a JUnit test with all the right setup, but missed a crucial assertion (there were very many other minor assertions) which made the test useless mostly.

> "The challenge with screen mirroring solutions is that they take over every single pixel in the car,"

This is not true. There are many brands that offer CarPlay in a window with the manufacturer's own interface around the CarPlay interface.

> Rivian's internal statistics showed that more than 70% of customers wanted CarPlay when their vehicles first launched around five years ago, but he said a recent survey showed that figure is apparently less than 25% now.

It'd be interesting to know how many of the 70% customers who initially wanted CarPlay are still driving a Rivian. I was one of them who was asking for CarPlay and now I longer drive a Rivian.

I don't have much to add other than this observation that we seem to have moved away from eating one small rock per day for nutritional value, and adding gasoline in spaghetti.

The glue on pizza reference brought back memories :)

Adding to the list of grievances, the functionality and the options it presented differed from app to app. I understand that the function keys also change their function app to app, but the visual noise the Touch Bar (wow - the word even gets autocorrected to have the right capitalization!) added as you switched between apps was too distracting.