I use a tiny translucent toy turtle. It’s cute, and I can still see the LED of the power button.

Much safer from cats

The original source was much more sensible.

The comparison makes sense for evaluating whether you’re over-invested in something. Like, if Nvidia suddenly poofed out of existence, would it seriously be worth 16% of everything the whole country makes in a year to get it back?

Owning a car that’s worth 16% of your yearly income sounds reasonable, no matter what your actual income is. A Pokemon card collection that’s 16% of your income is probably too risky, no matter what your actual income is.

Also, GDP is a decent scale to use for charting investment in a productivity tool, because if GDP ramped up at the same time as investment then it looks less like a bubble, even if they both ramp up quickly.

But that’s not what we see. We see a sudden and volatile shift, nothing like the normal pattern before the hype.

AI designed it

Jimmy Wales: Libertarian that ended up creating perhaps the most successful collectivist project of all time.

It’s the problem, but also the strength. That fragmentation allows room to experiment.

It also puts pressure on the underlying protocols/specs to be air-tight. If you have just one implementation to support, you can do whatever. If you have to support 15, all with different goals and constraints, you gotta be pretty damn careful.

So in the end, we get foundational systems that are able to evolve over time instead of needing a breaking-change, ground-up rewrite every 2 years.

Think of it like your browser history but for Git. It’s a list of the SHAs related to your recent operations.

And because Git is a content-addressable data store, a SHA is basically like a URL. Even if a branch no longer exists, if you know the SHA it pointed to then you can still check out the exact contents of that branch. The reflog helps you find that.

Git repository operations are (almost?) always recoverable. git reflog is your friend.

The filesystem operations are another story. Handle with care.

Peter Molyneux Studios presents, a Peter Molyneux production: Peter Molyneux’s Masters of Albion, by Peter Molyneux, featuring Peter Molyneux, and special guest Peter Molyneux

Ah. Definitely a translation issue. I didn’t realize there was a translation involved. Or that you were the author. I wouldn’t have been so critical otherwise. You’re doing great.

“Attachment” in general doesn’t have a direction, but in the context of “attach debugger”, it does, because the target of the attachment is the process you want to inspect. In this case, the process is the code you’re writing, not the LLM helping you write it.

attached a debugger to the LLM

interpret the input

This reads like someone who has heard of these general concepts but doesn’t understand them.

But then again, I just imagined trying to be 100% accurate while still being concise, and I don’t think it’s possible.

It’s also not really clear what the dynamic is supposed to be here. Is the LLM supposed to be invoking the generated code through a separate entry point like a test suite, or is the developer launching the built app with a debugger attached and feeding a prompt to the LLM whenever an exception is thrown?

Neither one of those would really be “attaching a debugger to the LLM” though, and in either case it would be interpreting the output not the input.

Needs an integrated battery and USB-C alt mode for display so you can use a keyboard + AR glasses and nothing else

MF was about to step down anyway but still didn’t take a swing at ICE?

I’d settle for just requiring interoperability. Seems like a reasonable requirement for a government to demand the ability to change vendors.

We have that requirement when it comes to munitions. You’re not allowed to sell the military a gun for which you are the only ammo manufacturer.

A side effect would probably be that more commercial software would be interoperable as a result, just because it’s easier for the vendors to maintain a single product rather than wildly different variants.

I’ve gone back to Hand of Fate 2 for like… the 15th time. Just such a cool concept. In a world full of card-based roguelikes, I’ve still never seen anything else quite like it.

Your deck isn’t just the equipment and buffs you might gain. It’s also the threats you might face, and the clues that might lead to new quests.

You’re playing against the deck, in many ways. Such a simple inversion, but it opens up the door to so many interesting modifiers.

I almost forgot to remember

Jut your stuff

Leftists be like: “If you’re anything less than perfect, I don’t want you on my side”

Fascists be like: “I don’t care what you do, as long as you’re on my side”