wizzledonker

Agreed, I love pen-supported laptops - but I'm told the mac won't support the apple pencil :(

Who uses finger touch on a laptop? I've never actually seen people use it in the wild so I'm just confused where the demand comes from.

For me, only “a hotel” and “an SQL query” sound correct here

(Edit: I just realised this might be a dialect thing. I say “ess cue ell” and not “sequel”, and “hoe tell” rather than “otel”. Australian accent)

This is why you need to compile your code for spacetimedb to WebAssembly and it runs inside a VM. Use the language of your choice, and assume the code is only semi-trusted with the ability to have a watchdog. That part makes sense.

I use it on Mac - I didn’t notice too much. There’s some GPU usage, I assume Apple still has some deprecated OpenCL drivers kicking around that it knows to use.

> So if you think that there is something salient about humans that can't be reproduced eventually by AI, then look into religious dualism.

Contradicts

> not what I was discussing. I was talking about programming.

To be concrete: my argument is that to

> "simulate humans or reproduce all of human nature"

Is exactly what would be required for an LLM to replace a human as an effective interface for programming. Crazy hill to die on, I know, but that's the goal.

I am purely talking about programming. The reasoning looks something like this.

1. LLMs are undeniably useful as assistants when programming.

2. At some point though, they are leveraged too much. This leads to humans having an inability to reason about the generated code.

3. The LLM now needs to be as good of an interface as a human being to be of any use.

I think most people would agree with this distinction. Where people argue is where the cutoff point lies - and it's actually hard to find. How do you know when you have transitioned between the three stages? It's tempting to say, if the speedup is marginal, it isn't worth the risk.

I guess, just to play devils advocate, what if code turns out to just be the minimally expressive communication medium required for a human to maintain agency over the function of a system?

If we consider (and I’m not saying this is true, just for arguments sake) that this agency is important as other humans enjoy talking to humans about a goal, rather than machines, and we think this will never change.

In this peculiar case, it actually doesn’t matter how “good” llms get - they will never cross a barrier fundamental to human nature?

I think the real issue might be that how “good” the code is matters less than being able to form a mental model for what the human who wrote the code was “thinking”. If written by a machine, this contract is broken and we get more confused, even if our traditional methods of evaluating the code come out equal.

Did you mean 2025?

That is quite literally exactly what they have done

Slightly unrelated: are the OCCT unfolding components a paid add on or included in the open source distribution?

I don't necessarily agree in this case - OCCT is more than capable for what FreeCAD is offering. Add to that the development trajectory of OCCT also seems to be really taking off recently (with the 8.0-RC, they've re-worked how all B-Spline algorithms work, with implications for all operations).

That would require calibration with the camera, and even then the camera and lidar sensor can’t be in exactly the same place. I doubt results would be better.

I'm so confused. Sentry is a native client crash reporting tool. What does this have to do with MCP or the LLM itself? Do you mean when interpreting the crash data?