Any sub-meter precision or presence detection does not really matter, if these companies have all your other questions, queries, messages, calendars, browse history, app usage, and streaming behaviour as well.

https://github.com/jameschrisa/Ollama_Tuning_Guide/blob/main...

Layer one also explicitly identifies stakeholders, and describes the current (AS-IS) situation with annonated screenshots so everyone quickly sees what we are talking about.

Layer two also lists alternative solutions considered and why not chosen.

Layer three is developers making a few notes on chosen tech design, most important is the choice reasoning here.

In all layers, add and use references. Less is more, a picture beats a wall of text.

Workflow in a nutshell:

- Start a sketch on a plane, use toolbar circle, draw, type dimensions, close sketch.

- Click the rectangle you made and use toolbar extrude.

- Click the resulting object (bottom left) and export as STL / 3MF file.

It is parametric design:

- Discover your oops. Go back to sketch or extrude, edit dimension, entire design updates by magic.

- Dimensions can be changed into a quickly editable #variablesYouName by typing # basically.

Documentation is short and to the point. Same for most videos that explain how to accomplish something specific. Love it.

First MVP stupid designs, then optimized routing, and eventually usable ingame where it connects with provided in/outputs.

Would be more fun to develop than to play obviously..

I liked the nilhouse mega base with that factory-train-blocks blueprints, its basically Factorio DUPLO.

The only “offline editing” that I allow on human text documents is having people add comments. So not editing, no automated merging.

For “offline editing” that I allow on automation (source code) is GIT which intentionally does not pretend to solve the merge, it just shows revisions. The merge is an action supervised by humans or specialised automation on a “best guess” effort and still needs reviews and testing to verify success.

Clicking the back button redirects me to a never-seen-before and full-screen Ad page before returning to Hacker News.

I am never visiting insideevs.com again. If this is real news, a real news website shall report it.

But reassembling is the true brute.

When applying ReactJS in webdev after doing all kinds of engineering in all kinds of (mostly typed) languages in many runtimes, I was so surprised that JS did not actually had a struct/record as seen in C/Pascal. Everything is a prototype that pretends its an object, but without types and pointers, and abstraction layers that added complexity to gain backwards compatibility.

Not even some object hack that many OO and compiled languages had. ES did not add it either, and my hopes where in WebAsm.

This proposal however seems like the actual plan that i’d like to use a lot.

A lot of the code complexity was to get simple guarantees for data quality. The alternative was to not care, either a feature or caveat of the used prototype model.

Also, this todo system is basically what I apply on chaos-days, but with the addition that I preferably start next days list at end of day, as to remind me of momentum and focus.

- BPMN https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Process_Model_and_N...

- MDA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-driven_architecture

- MBSE https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-based_systems_engineer...

The tooling on these for Analysts I feel is not on par with tools for Developers. Often outdated and enterprise-only both in price and complexity of use.

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-driven_engineering#Too...

Any more insights welcome. At first I expected to find a complete “draw a model, generate api + sourcecode with validation functions” ecosystem of interoperable ecosystems. Apparently the market is not there yet.

If an analyst can create the "perfect functionality model" than a developer can parse this into the "perfect software", provided he created the "perfect architecture model" to assist this. See my other post on MDA and MBSE.

When developing (parts of) complex software, I always liked doing something akin to "Unit Testing" (plus a custom UI/report) that basically checked the boxes of a Architecture-Model I wanted to adhere to. With near-instant compilation (or hot-reloading) it becomes easier to see a live reflection of the data going through your pipeline live.

A good End-To-End (E2E) test can do the same for a Feature-Model, e.g. using Test Driven Development (TDD) or any derative of this. However todays tooling is still behind on this, compared to tooling developers have for architecture. Only a few solutions exist and those are tech-giant level (IBM) or contained and highly specialized for one business sector / problem domain.

    User Feature -> Feature Model -> Architecture Model -> Source Code

Some buzzwords to google: - Business Process Modeling and Notation (BPMN) - Model Driven Architecture (MDA) - Model Based System Engineering (MBSE)

In theory, the developer output is a function of the desired functionality. If the functionality fits a parsable model, we should be able to transcode this into sourcecode. In a nutshell this is can be a result from adoption of MDA and/or MBSE.

In a nutshell, I believe software development should happen from models to "generate" code, that then can be augumented by software developers. Updates from a model should result in updated code.

So for that reason alone some vehicles are not fit for use in residential areas, and likely to be improved or forced out by law.

Headlights on trailer trucks are not even that bad/high.

Kinetic bombardment is possible by launching a satellite with (for example, since its a popular description) heavy tungsten rods, that are parked in orbit. The launch can be years ahead, and disguised as a communications hub.

The satellite can “shoot” at targets from orbit. A rod carries no explosives, and is hard to stop.

The speed due to falling/gravity makes the kinetic impacts huge, its basically small asteroids.

They can even be guided, like the landing boosters.

And to go full circle: the concept of aero-flaps on Falcon-9 (and later Starship Booster) was inspired by designs for falling guided bombs, where fins did not perform at the speeds achieved.