I have no affiliation to the project, just someone that's done some hobby PCB design in the past and a couple weeks ago was exploring what's available in age of AI. Flux looked expensive and unimpressive. While it definitely burned through some tokens, I was able to get a seemingly functional PCB meeting my design requirements and was able to iterate on it using my existing Claude code subscription. I did use Gemini for some of the initial design research and parts selection since I find its search a bit better, but was overall impressed. I think with some tuning of the Claude skills to have it do a bit less guess-and-check it could be a nice workflow. Definitely better than the either really dated or really expensive PCB design tools in the market.

In other words it is a gradient from "my current prediction" to "best prediction given my imperfect knowledge" to "best prediction with perfect knowledge", and you can improve the outcome by shrinking the gap between 1&2 or shrinking the gap between 2&3 (or both)

So if there's performance gains to be had by co-locating RAM with the CPU in a single package, it makes sense to me to do so

Typescript playground: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?#code/C4TwDgpgBACg9gZ2F...

Alternatively you mock _everything_ and then your "unit test" ends up just being a tautological test asserting that "the code I wrote executes in the way I wrote it". (Not to mention that every time you mock something you are also implicitly asserting what the expected behavior of that thing is).

The only truly reliable tests are E2E tests, but they are too expensive to cover all possible permutations as there are just too many.

This is the catch 22 with testing, and we're always forced to make pragmatic choices about where to draw our boundaries to maximize the value (i.e. actual bugs caught) of them.

The only issue I have is when companies can play both sides and in one breath claim they're neutral for the purpose of section 230 protection, and then in the next breath take part in censorship because it's better for business.

Pick a lane, either lane, but you shouldn't get it both ways

I think the other part of it is that it is just part of a cohesive language design where everything is an expression, including things like if's, matches, etc that would be control flow statements in other languages.. It would be a little weird to say that functions are the only thing that have different semantics.

Someone with advanced dementia may be too far from that threshold to change the decision for them, but that doesn't mean that better institutions wouldn't move the needle.

The consumer decides the price that is acceptable for the good - the cost of that good being higher or lower just changes the viability of the product and the bottom line from selling it. So it makes tons of sense that given two similar products that consumers will pay a similar price for that companies would prefer to sell the one that costs them less.

It turns out that even though I can't stand the number of ads, Google is still much better at getting me an answer quickly (usually with the quick answer modules).

I was also surprised at the number of times Kagi came up with 0 search results, and while one of the draws for me was to have higher quality results instead of quantity, I still found a _ton_ of results for AI generated crappy top-10-list sites trying to sell me something.

Love the idea, and will probably check back in from time to time, but so far the execution just isn't there for me.

Now for Podcasts (or any given product) there's always going to be some calculus of "is it enough value to justify the cost", and clearly Google believes the answer here is no.