We'll discuss a feature implementation with various options for design, settle on one of them, and then it will write in the doc comment all the designs we considered but dropped.
Vibe slop or put on your C.V "contributor to <wellknownproject>"? In terms of social currency B wins easily, unless you can guerilla market as well as Openclaw.
that won't work because all those millions of 'projects' are unmaintainable vaporware which is exactly why people try to piggyback on the reputation of software that is actually being used and developed by people
It isn’t, but at the same time, smart hackers were working with highly constrained PC hardware in the 1980s and early 1990s and were cranking surprisingly good performance out of it. Folklore.org has plenty of stories about it, and John Carmack’s early career history is very impressive. We mustn’t forget the demo scene hackers either.
Recently I tried an approach of "just write the f*** code" instead of using infinite abstractions on a new UI side project. So for instance when you scroll, it shifts the pixels and just redraws the new exposed area. This is how stuff worked in the 90s. And it's blazing fast and uses very little memory. It's easy to mess up redraw code like that - in my case, when the window goes past the screen border and the pixels to copy aren't there. That's a bug we also had a lot of in the 90s.
That's why phones and windows use animations. You can also use intersitials related to the product you sell. Users are usually fine seeing many changes on the screen quickly because it gives the impression that stuff is happening on the background. For example in the interstitial, use an animation that takes up a small portion of the screen and not just a simple spinner or loading icon. Something more complicated with 2 or more things moving or changing at once.
If your app absolutely must rely on the cloud for every one of its interactions, then fine. If not, you're just applying band-aids to a problem of your own making. Many apps could easily be local only, or local first. If you're not constantly accessing the network for information which could be stored locally, then you don't need to hide your app's slowness behind animations.
Canva replaced PowerPoint. Canva is cloud based and PowerPoint is not. There's so many apps that are cloud only so that corporate it no longer has to manage installations and users don't need to ask IT for permission anymore. I think SaaS doesn't really work without the cloud, you could technically do what adobe does but why bother with app distribution and windows' quirks. Cloud based web apps are write once, run anywhere come true with no installation required. Cloud based is more convenient for the user and the developer, at the cost of app runtime speed
I like this example. A lot of people would prefer to use PowerPoint because they can still use their files and templates they made last year even if Microsoft doubles the price of Powerpoint, removes features, discontinues the product, or goes bankrupt.
They literally unlicense the product out from under you as part of windows update. You’re the one having to sue, unless you never connect your machine to the internet anyway.
I have seen many companies migrate to gsuite away from Microsoft. It's perfectly compatible with excel, word and PowerPoint files unless you use macros
Just nerds I think. I'm not seeing any evidence that people who want freedom from the cloud make up any sizeable market segment. Most corporations actually prefer the opposite - they prefer a monthly fee and continuous silent updates.
I'm not familiar with Canva but I don't see any technical reason why every interaction would need to rely on the server. Since Canva uses client-side JavaScript, it could be designed so that the local version of a document updates immediately and the cloud version syncs with the local version as soon as possible.
I would guess Canva already does something like this.
My bad, I mean the interstitial. Like it should stay for at least a second to not make it jarring. People believe computers need to think so you can't make things too fast either. Not the interstitial and not the app either, to the point you sometimes have to deliberately slow down the app, add latency to make people trust it because it "gives the computer time to think"
Power users absolutely hate this mindset. It’s resulted in Apple animations taking seconds for something that was done before the animation even started.
The delay in filing email in iOS is incredible. Selecting and moving a single message can take over a second, even with animations disabled. Maddening for what should be an instantaneous action.
I don't doubt that was an original justification, but most of what I see are not for this purpose. Most of the time they're just adding unnecessary delay and CPU cycles.
First of all this isn't true. We cannot yet build something which has all the output associated with reasoning.
But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If I had a magical machine which could appear from the outside to be reasoning, but upon closer introspection was simply simulating reasoning, by definition it would not be reasoning. And yet that is the criterion you seem to think indicates reasoning ability. So it's not a sufficient criterion.
Claiming we've figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning is hopelessly naive.
You are making two different claims, and then treating them as one.
1. Mimicking a process may not prove that the system is truly preforming the same process. In this case, a "reasoning" process.
2. A system that simulates a process cannot, by definition, be doing the process.
The first claim can be defended, but the second doesn't follow from the first.
Calling it a "simulation" is assuming the conclusion. What makes it a simulation rather than some implementation of reasoning on a different substrate? I.e. transistors rather than neurons.
No. But it is a better digger, and it can in fact dig, evident by the fact that it digs. It doesn’t merely simulate digging just because it’s a machine.
If you are going to advocate against something, the alternative you propose needs to be better in some important area, other than "not that thing".
What is the thing you hate about react, and what is the thing you require in an alternative?
I hate bloat and require lightness, so I use Preact.
I also hate complexity and difficult to read stuff, so when I look at the proposal here, I don't see anything appealing, other than "look! it's not react!"
I only read up to the "Petals around the Rose" exercise. I found it pretty easy to deduce (induce?) but the author is right, there's no general algorithmic method to do it .. except for intelligence.
So, the solution is "AI", and even then it's only a "probably".
The exercise didn't necessarily feel easy to deduce within the 20 minutes I tried, but after asking LLMs (spoilers alert!):
1. How big of a hint is the name
2. How big of a help will choosing numbers manually be
3. How important is the number of dies
4. How familiar do I have to be with flowers
The answer to the riddle, and then to the questions I asked were immediately obvious. I feel kind of ashamed, haha.
> The exercise didn't necessarily feel easy to deduce within the 20 minutes I tried,
I admire your breakdown, and I felt your pain.
My frustration was with opening a new tab for each sample because I was too lazy to transcribe rolls (for review) -- so once I'd opened and revisited about 16 tabs I got rather annoyed and just started rapid rolling looking for high values ...
After about 30 seconds of this pique I rolled a Yahtzee 55555 value 20 and went: Doh!
My takeaway is that using "induction" to illuminate Human ~vs LLM may be wrong framing when Eureka moments are possible.
Matrix Reloaded (2003) ...
Neo: Hiya fellas.
Agent 1: It’s him.
Agent 2: The Anomaly.
Agent 3: Do we proceed?
Agent 2: Yes.
Agent 3: He is still...
Agent 1: ...only human.
Neo: Hmm--*upgrades* [beats all three nonetheless]
You are literally the only person to say that, including among Tesla employees who are basically being forced to switch. Elon himself admits they’re woefully behind.
I think AIs generally "like" the API surface exposed by Shirei. They seem to understand it pretty well and are able to "vibe code" any kind of UI you ask of them using this framework.
To your general point though, yes, there's a lot of uncertainty about what things it makes sense to build in the AI era. I don't have good answers for what would make sense for 10 years down the road, but at this point of time, I think a project like this actually makes perfect sense.
Now that AI can write the code for us, we need better frameworks and libraries, because a lot of what we have now is quite honestly slop.
You could say that you could get AI to maintain 3 separate codebases of the same application UI, each one targeted to a different platform, and the AI will maintain the feature parity and you won't have to worry about it.
For now, AI can take care of coding, but it does not relieve you of having to pay attention to things. If you create 2 or 3 code bases for the different platforms you target, the maintenance burden still falls on you.
But I don't know for how long the situation will remain like this.
Last year I did not think I'd be using AI for coding. I dug up a few tweets I posted last year saying that LLMs have hit a plateau and will stop improving, and that AI coding is a scam being promoted by charlatans.
Most open source projects are abandoned because the author never finds enough time to work on it or can't muster the focus and attention needed.
It is not true that there is "lack" of human investment in the creation of this. If anything, I spent the last two weeks glued to the screen most of the time, to a degree I have never experienced before, building out all the different areas that lead to this release.
I will not mention the monetary investment because it's not the type that matters here.
Attention, which is arguably the most scarce form of investment, was invested in ample amounts.
> I spent the last two weeks glued to the screen most of the time, to a degree I have never experienced before,
With respect, a single period of manic hyperfocus is not what makes a project, it is being in it for the long-haul and putting in the hours here and there even when it isn't fun any more and you have many other things you might rather be doing.
To be clear I don't want to detract from what you've made here. Agentic engineering done right does still require a lot time and attention IMO. But you've still got a challenge on your hands to demonstrate to potential adopters that you're in it for the long haul.
We'll discuss a feature implementation with various options for design, settle on one of them, and then it will write in the doc comment all the designs we considered but dropped.
reply