zaep

I think, of course, skepticism around this "LLM discovers X" thing is warranted, and there have been plenty of more recent examples around questionable LLM "discoveries". Just stating this because the LK99 thing I believe was notable as a (supposed) room-temp _super_conductor while this is about a _semi_conductor.

This is a rare instance where I think Wikipedia is plain wrong. Maybe the process to have multiple pages renamed is onerous? The thing in the original post I've usually heard to be called spinners, while this input element, which I'm not sure I've ever even seen, doesn't seem to have its name justified in any way on the Wikipedia page either. I can't really tell why it'd desperately need a concise name either, it's basically a numeric input with extra controls on it? anyhow, spinners spin and those spin so they're spinners, I won't hear otherwise.

I don't know, I think you have a point that aesthetic preferences are subjective and shifting. But there is also all-caps monospaced text with emdashes in it on the site; just an example of something I think would not turn into a fashion at any point because it just looks silly (subjectively, to me at least). Thus I don't think the antipathy of people towards these llm-generated landing pages is entirely based on associating it with other LLM sites, there is at least an element of it clearly not being through as much human review and interaction as a hand-crafted landing page necessarily would be.

I don't own a car, and I found the article mildly interesting, but I can't get over the sentence

> Our last three cars, the eldest of which was from the 2017 model year [...].

Is it common to buy three cars in let's say 10 years? That seems like a large amount of spend (afaik cars depreciate in value rather quick?) and -- barring accidents -- a really short time to have to replace something as sturdy as a car; If I get less than three years out of a phone it feels like a waste and it feels like the main barrier for phone longevity (besides batteries, which are replaceable) is security updates.

IDK, since I don't see any comments on it, it must not be that strange, it just struck me as odd.

Working in satellite simulation, where we end up with complex harnesses (cabling) and where I don't really know the nitty-gritty of how the sausage is made by the engineers creating them, I was really curious for a moment; but alas, it's an AI thing.

FWIW, my quick impression is that takes reasonable concepts and tries to formalize them into a framework; I can see potential benefits, I've certainly asked in a claude code session for it to have a look at pipeline so and so and figure out the issue, but I'm not really convinced by this at first glance either. Both setup-cost and token cost seem like downsides.

I think that's not viable. To make that work you'd have to keep up with the kernel for years, probably more than a decade, to reach some kind of critical mass and become influential enough to be capable of separating from it and driving decisions that run counter to it. That's not even to mention the loss it would be to have these capable teams (rust proponents for the kernel and extremely experienced maintainers and contributors who want nothing to do with it) working in parallel at best and in partial opposition at worst, when they could work together.

There is a (to me very surprising) typo in the section 'Focus on what matters.' where the AI summary states "... 11 out off[sic] 100 products ..."

I don't think I've ever encountered a typo in any of the LLM output I've seen, seems like the exact sort of thing an LLM would be more or less perfect at. Am I wrong to take this as an indication that this text is actually written by a human as a concise marketing example?

oh sick, thanks for letting me know

    Location: Germany (Bremen / Hamburg)
    Remote: flexible (Europe/Berlin time ideally)
    Willing to relocate: likely not, perhaps within Germany especially back to Berlin
    Technologies: Rust, Go, C++, Linux, WASM, SBOM
    CV: https://hensel.dev/about/cv
    Email: see CV

I'm a software developer about to finish my MSc (CS) looking what interesting work might be out there.

I am very happy with Zola. Every SSG has its own shortcomings, for Zola I was initially bothered by lack of 'proper' footnotes and the insistence on having to have frontmatter, but I've yet to feel that I cannot do something really. The docs can be a touch confusing imo, but they're written with care.

I'm sure you're right in what you say, but this is not the reason modern acrobat is slow. I'm sure you could build a modern and accessible app that starts and loads the requested PDF snappily to show it, but acrobat will also (iirc) have some cloud integration now for storage and a bunch of the features they offer are gated behind some sort of subscription, the status of which I would guess is loaded on startup, probably along with a bunch of other stuff.

Can it possibly be true that 60+% (she writes "nearly two-thirds") of women in STEM have this character as an influence? I'm only barely aware of this media property and here in Europe I feel our Media is fairly "American" still, does this show have such a global reach? I found, for instance, that the X-Files movie only had 4.2% of its revenue internationally, so I think its not such a popular property outside the US. How would even 10% of chinese female STEM workers hear of this character?

I believe she is citing the PDF she links, where only an archived version is available right now. It seems to be a US-only study, although I don't see any explanation of where participants were from.