As a Costco member and customer, I’d actually trust the leadership more than most companies. Use the tariff money and keep that $1.50 hotdog ~ enough avg Americans can use that break for lunch, even if not the healthiest.

Not purely an advertisement, it’s a real app! https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/updog-ai/

But it does help with marketing and showing off our tech.

I don’t feel that old, but I guess being 45 is ancient in tech.

The Silicon Valley tech jobs we have now has a history rooted in World War 2 and funding of it by the US gov.

https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?si=gGza5eIv485xEKLS

I’m not saying war is good or anything, but also don't ride a high horse cause none of it would be here w/o WW2.

But a civilian should have the right to participate in defense and not offense without fear of retribution or being humiliated. They are not the only game in town. All the DOW had to do was drop them, pick Openai and support the latter including recommending it to all the nations that listen to the president. That would be good for Openai business.

Thanks for sharing. This is very interesting.

Watching this, I realised one thing: Germans, once upon a time phenomenally intelligent folks, got eroded by a bunch of stupid politicians’ ambitions.

I’d argue it’s come full circle and it hasn’t changed a bit.

There wouldn’t be a Silicon Valley without World War 2 and US gov. funding of Stanford to develop radar basically.

The initial investment from then gave critical capital mass for Stanford, the VCs, and the tech companies of today.

https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?si=gGza5eIv485xEKLS

When humans write the software, who verifies it?

half sarcasm, half real-talk.

TDD is nice, but human coders barely do it. At least AI can do it more!

> half sarcasm, half real-talk.

If you could pause a bit from being awed by your own perceived insightfulness, you would think a just bit harder and realize that LLMs can generate hundreds of thousands of code that no human could every verify within a finite amount of time. Human-written software is human verifiable, AI-assisted human-written software is still human verifiable to some extent, but purely AI-written software can no longer be verified by humans.

That's a very unpleasant tone to take.

Hot take (?):

The random sizing today is great:

* If you want a better fit, go physically to a store instead of shopping online and try them on.

* the vanity part is also fine, no need to cause outrage at raising the number and making people depressed cause they think they're even more "fat". It doesn't need to be "optimized"

* Only serves online retail to "standardize", but guess what, 15th standard also sucks... <cue xkcd comic about standards>.

Enjoyed the presentation of the site. :)

> * If you want a better fit, go physically to a store instead of shopping online and try them on.

Cool. If you don't have an hourglass shape, none of them will fit you properly. They'll either be way out in the hips, or the thighs, or the waist, or the length (for pants), or the waist, the length, the shoulders, the bust, or the arms (for shirts), and don't get me started on shoes. What now?

In the spirit of Winter Olympics, I vote “Lion on a bobsled” next bench . :)

`/init` is good enough.

Model improvements will take care of the rest.

Or the opposite, that humans are somehow super special and not as simple as a prediction feedback loop with randomizations.

If it’s easy to read and understand but doesn’t work, or is slow to execute, or costs a lot to run, is it good code?

If the function is a black box, but you’re sure the inputs produces a certain output without side effects and is fast, do you NEED “good code” inside?

After about 10yrs of coding, the next 10 of coding is pretty brainless. Better to try and solve people/tech interaction problems than plumbing up yet-another-social/mobile/gaming/crypto thing.

All artificial things that we make are rough inside. Yet the living things are not, they are beautiful on every level. And above the mere survival needs we do have a yearn for the same quality in what we make.