> In the Write-Only Code story, that same engineer becomes a systems designer, a constraint writer, and a trade-off manager.
This is also what I see my job to be shifting towards, increasingly fast in recent weeks. I wonder how long we will stay in this paradigm, I dont know.
interesting. Do you have an example of what exactly it outputs and how you store that? how do you use the outputs? As a pointer to a new agent with fresh context to get them up to speed?
Note I archive these to a different non-repo folder regularly. It's fun to tell Claude to go through them like a RAG implementation and note the progress of my development over time, which I update semi-regularly at: https://david.cornelson.net/sharpee-status-20260109.html
Yes. None of this early stuff should be monetized and that Entire business model is all about monetizing something that doesn't need it.
I have hooks in Claude to auto-generate the work summary and read the last work summary on start. Now if I could only get Claude to quit/restart on its own or have it thoroughly flush its resources (even Anthropic says restarting is better), we'd be getting somewhere. I do wish there were automatic hooks that fire all the time (like a heart monitor) where I could query "if context is below 15%" do this: stop all work, write work summary, commit and push all changes, release all resources, read last work summary, continue the work.
uninstall the app. Works really well to me. The conscious effort of reinstalling it is enough to prevent me from doing it. Whereas using the awfully implemented screentime guards, I just find myself clicking on "Allow for 15 minutes" before I even understand what I do.
I think im just less prone to doomscroll type addictions, but i found myself sitting on the toilet for longer than normal when youtube shorts became something tougher to easily remove from the base youtube experience on their app.
This caused me to disable the youtube app(literally can't uninstall it on a pixel stock os), and if i ever utilize youtube on my phone its through firefox instead.
I also got the extension unhook on my desktop/laptop, and now my youtube experience is more reminiscent of the early 2010s where I would just use it to look up sports highlights or music videos, and if i don't have a video or subject in mind im not force fed one.
This also just kinda shows me how terrible the search experience is on youtube. Feel like all of their effort is on their doomscroll / suggested content, rather than their search results.
personally I haven't used tiktok ever but Instagram reels are the real thing
however, I must say that youtube shorts is the worst of the bunch, even if I'm trying to be entertained, it's full of just slop spam and "top 5" or something that I'm not interested in, while reels are actually funny
I remember I'd sometimes try and get into it, scrolling just to see if I can find one thing that's actually good and just quitting because I got frustrated.
it's truly the worst of the bunch in my opinion.
and they've definitely made the overall experience worse on youtube while focusing all efforts on shorts and funneling you to it.
Tiktok, Instagram reels, Facebook reels/shorts, YouTube Shorts ... to me these are all equally bad. I'm sure there are many other sources of attention destruction.
select in finder the file that currently opens with XCode, then press Cmd+i. It opens the information panel. There in the Open with section, you can chose the app and then also Change all to not use XCode.
How is heritabiltity of life span useful if by the time the lifespan becomes known (eg at 80yrs old) the inheritance is not possible anymore (eg menopause)?
Heritability acts on lineages, not individuals (in general, not always) - a good rule of thumb is that traits that benefit 3 or more generations of a family have a good shot at being propagated. In this case, the advantage (of both menopause and longevity) is increased well-being of the tribe, ampliyfing the positive effects of culture and stability. Wisdom of the elders is implicit to the genetics. This is a tradeoff with the cost in resources; at some point the cost to keep someone around might exceed the benefit, but from an evolutionary standpoint, the accounting is over a lifetime; in a relatively stable environment, genes that improve longevity and healthspan will be reinforced by the positive feedback loops of culture and nurture and civilization and technology. Menopause is also prevalent in orcas and a handful of other mammals - and older females help rearing and protecting babies, and so forth, with a protoculture providing that feedback loop.
It's not useful. Indeed that's likely why we die of old age - there is no selective pressure to remove harmful mutations that don't reduce your ability to pass on your genes so such harmful mutations just accumulate over many generations. You might have a mutation that will cause your heart to rupture at age 150, but you'll never know it because you'll die of something else first.
It is possible though to selectively breed animals like flies for long lifespan. You wait to see how long one generation lives and cull the descendants of those that died early. It's inefficient but lifespan extensions of 50-60% have been demonstrated. One could imagine through gene editing that a species might be able to reap the benefits without the culling.
Note that evolution isn't about individuals, it's about genes (which we should further note is more than just DNA, but that's a different discussion). If it weren't valuable for humans to live at all without being fertile, then the average age of menopause and the average age of death would likely be much closer together. As it turns out, the human genes that were best able to pass themselves along were those that kept old people around despite being infertile, presumably to the benefit of helping to raise grandchildren, among other things.
Healthy grandparents that are around to support their children and take care of grandchildren increase the fitness of the entire lineage by helping their children have more children and those grandchildren to be healthier/safer.
If you are interacting with a carrier of your genes at all while they still might reproduce, you are having an impact on their fitness and thus evolutionary pressure exists.
We're social animals. Anything that benefits the extended tribal unit is advantageous. Adults beyond child-bearing age contribute significantly to child raising, education, leadership etc of the entire tribe.
In (quantitative) genetics literature, heritability is usually defined (simplifying a bit) as the proportion of variance of a trait (lifespan, height, etc), in a population, that can be explained by genetics. The rest, by environmental factors, or error.
If height were a 100% heritability means that all differences in height between individuals would be explainable by genetics.
Maybe I should have been more explicit that here "variance explained by" is used quite literally with the meaning it has in statistical modeling. I get that you meant it in a "correlation not causation" way, but "correlation" in the context of statistics is a loaded term. Interpretability of heritability is difficult in general. Most people struggle with it. But if it truly were 100% (rarely is if ever) it would imply causation solely from genetic factors. Causation from both genetics and environment is always there - heritability just seeks to formalize the measure of proportion.
Those old people used to be young and helped pay for their parents and grandparents to live into old age. Part of being young and productive is helping take care of those less able than you, including the elderly.
Unless you're volunteering to work for 40 years then be executed on retirement, I think you should delete that comment and that thought from your mind.
Given the opportunity, one wonders what you'd like to do with 'old people consuming resources without adding anything and supposedly 'holding back societies'. Earlier in the 20th century a significant cohort of intellectuals had decided ideas on this and the earlier generations.
Related somewhat to this: 'The Intellectuals and the Masses' by John Carey makes for truly shocking reading.
I have to say both the leafless trees and electrical box spawning is very on point for what you would find in eg Belgium. Check this full blown ugly building/container that spawned in the beautiful Liege Guillemins station https://maps.app.goo.gl/T1J7WwCCYDvBgJEc7
If they are young trees along the side of the road, generally they are broken off at the stump by a car before they can grow, and then you're left with an empty tree well.
Maybe.. or maybe you underestimate the insanities you can find in real life too (the model isnt that creative unfortunately). See here, 5 different no-parking signs for the same 2 spots: https://maps.app.goo.gl/S74r7eawH2vL24CX7
As a retail investor mostly invested into broad ETFs (All World), is there any way I can get short exposure to OpenAI? Being short Oracle/Nvidia/Microsoft?
Shorting OIA, or really any big company, is like trying to stop a train which is on fire by standing in front of it. Yes, it is on fire and won't last long, but it will still crush any small player trying to overpower whole corrupt system.
Betting on the trainwreck is quite easy, you got nothing to lose in the analogy, while shorting companies will cost you something, most times a lot if the bet has the wrong timing.
Not necessarily. Spread betting doesn't work like that for instance. And shorting a stock can be structured in a way that caps your losses as well. It's just a matter of cost vs potential gains.
I've never used polymarket, I just wanted to mention prediction markets as an option in general.
The particular bet I linked to is probably a bad idea though, because there is a causal link between OpenAI doing well and deciding to go public. So this is not the way to bet on it crashing and burning.
Exactly. I would prefer to remain invested as I dont want to time the market. But I would prefer if I could meaningfully reduce exposure to OpenAI and the consequences of their possible downfall.
I have. Personally, I'm a big fan of hybrid representations like this. An underlying mesh helps with relighting, deformation, and effective editing operations (a mesh is a sparse node graph for an otherwise unstructured set of data).
However, surface-based constraints can prevent thin surfaces (hair/fur) from reconstructing as well as vanilla 3DGS. It might also inhibit certain reflections and transparency from being reconstructed as accurately.
This is also what I see my job to be shifting towards, increasingly fast in recent weeks. I wonder how long we will stay in this paradigm, I dont know.
reply