tonyarkles

Uhhhh interesting, did pastebin get hacked? Both of those start out normal but pretty quickly redirect to a fake McAfee “zomg you got a virus” spam

Do you mean people get mad when people are called stochastic parrots? Or people get mad when LLMs are called stochastic parrots? Because uhhh that doesn’t really sound like an original thought in either case.

I would argue that the better you can “close the loop” the better. One of my favourite agent activities is giving it a firmware bug and JTAG access + a serial port. That setup means that flashing, debugging (inspecting variables and whatnot, setting breakpoints, etc), and logging can all happen completely autonomously.

Works especially well for transient/hard to repro bugs. It’ll either set breakpoints or write a monitoring script, go to sleep, get woken up by the harness when the bug trips, inspect state, put together a new build based on a hypothesis built from the debugging, flash it, and loop. I’ve had sessions run completely autonomously for over a day and come with a beautiful one-line solution to a gnarly race condition.

In that regard it’s like a human: you can read code all day if you want and you might get somewhere, but being able to inspect what happened, build a new theory, test it, and iterate is way more powerful 99% of the time.

I'm with you brother/sister! I recently acquired a small hobby-grade laser cutter that can do 1/4" plywood happily and 1/2" plywood if you ask it really really nicely.

One of the things I intend on doing with it is cutting router templates for parts that I need to make a bunch of with "identical" dimensions. Get it as close as I can with the table saw and miter saw, stick the template to it, and use a flush-cut bit to clean up my slop.

It's a fun tool in its own right, I really get a kick out of designing and cutting tab-and-slot designs. They just fit together so beautifully right off the laser. I get the joy of designing the project and assembling the project without the swearing/frustration bit in the middle.

> Side mount drawer slides don't have a lot of allowance for the drawer to be undersized and basically none for it to be oversized. Under mount slides are a little more forgiving, but I definitely still account for my actual material thickness on them. In either case, you're definitely building the drawer boxes to the as-built size of the opening they're going into and not the platonic ideal opening from the plans/drawings.

This doesn't work great for what the previous poster is asking about, where something needs to fit into a specific space (the comment about scribing a face frame is mint though), but what I typically look for when I'm building things, whether wood, metal, 3D printed, etc, is to try to find the critical faces and let everything shake out around that.

For example, in the side-mount-slide drawer box situation, you've nailed it: the spacing between the exterior face of the drawer and the interior face of the carcass is critical. What I personally would do for that situation would be something like:

- cut rear carcass rails and drawer front and backs precisely with exactly the right spacing, and probably a few temporary front carcass rails that won't be part of the finished product but can be clamped in place for lay-up

- the drawer sides and front/back get dowels that are drilled referenced to the outer edge of the drawer front/back and outside face of the drawer sides

- a slightly oversized dado in the drawer front/back/sides so that the bottom doesn't need to be made as precisely. It can still fit snug in the slot, but if it's a little oversized or undersized relative to nominal, it's not the end of the world

Lol I played around with it a bit and quite like it, it's similar to a tool I've had kicking around in my mind for a while. Man oh man, the amount of text in e.g. the cut lists is just wild :D. Definitely has been my experience that LLMs like to add way too much text to straightforward applications.

OpenSCAD as well. I bounce back and forth between the two of them a fair bit depending on what I'm doing and which one's going to be more ergonomic for the problem at hand. The Fusion 360 built-in chat thing... not so good in my very limited experience.

> If a contributor wishes to poke the edges of the policy to try and find the line of acceptable AI/LLM usage in the project, they are probably not the kind of contributor they want

I think this is where it becomes a question of whether it’s an ideological rejection of LLMs or a technical/practical rejection of LLMs.

A project that is rejecting contributions where LLMs are used purely because of the “we can’t handle the amount of newbie generated inbound slop” would, in theory at least, have minimal issue where the contribution is, in fact, indistinguishable from human-only contribution. “This person has put together a solid clean patch that solves a real problem” sounds like a great kind of contributor to have.

On the other hand, a project that rejects LLM-assisted patches because of ideology or social or environmental concerns might actually hate a contributor like this even more than a random drive-by slop contributor.

I say this as a long-term and loving user of QGIS: QGIS is proof that human-only authorship is no guarantee that code will be bug-free and well-designed.

I don’t have a good solution to their slop problem, but I also don’t have a good solution to their overall bandwidth problem. I like QGIS better than any other GIS software I’ve had the misfortune of using, and at the same time brace myself a little bit every time I open it up because there’s a solid chance I’m going to have encounter another weird quirk or awkward workflow that I haven’t figured out The Trick for…

I legit did not know. I have seen it before, I've never really understood what it was, and didn't really have any reason to dig further into why people were linking against it instead of actual twitter/x until today. I've been here about a year less than you.

“One cone (Joshua)” is wild for the exploration it does before settling on a solution!

Oh yeah, Physics of Racing Series was fantastic. I’m going to have to dig that up again. Also did a deep dive into it in undergrad and had a blast.

The thing that I always come back to whenever some kind of heavy-handed government intervention is proposed: what would the other side use this same power to do? OP explicitly called out a hypothetical benevolent US government, but the government changes every 4 years. Even if there were such a hypothetical benevolent government in power when this happened, 4 years later it could be something entirely different.

Huh, my first reaction was to say that Enhanced Geothermal is actually just a polite way of saying fracked geothermal but it turns out that's not quite accurate. Hydro-shearing (which EGS uses) doesn't intentionally create new cracks in the rock, which fracking does, but will cause existing cracks to grow. Potentially still negative local effects for sure but not as violently, hopefully.