People lamented semver not being trustable but that ship sailed a long time ago, and supply chain attacks are going to get worse before they get better.

Our team is pretty minimal when it comes to enforced hooks (everyone has their own workflow) but no one could come up with an objection to this one.

If I had to sum up the zeitgeist of the '90s techno-optimism it would be this persistent, confident prediction that once people just learned _how_ to use computers, and everyone is a power user everything will be fine! Despite the mounting evidence that actually, no, like everything else in reality the distribution of skill is a bell-curve with the median sitting uncomfortably low for those who, to quote OP, "lived on IRC or in the bash terminal".

Free universal education didn't fix this problem, LLMs won't fix this problem. Man's natural paucity is no longer in the availability or accessibility of knowledge. The liberal ideal that all we must do is empower the individual turns out to not have been the solution to everything forever.

But hey, being self-aware enough to make productive use of this new technology is probably _some_ kind of edge.

May as many as possible survive.

Ah, I was wondering how this was different to xterm.js embedded in a page. It's just the performance angle? I've been teaching the kids programming from the terminal and I've been planning to make the jump from the terminal to a terminal in the browser as we hit graphical limitations (and as they want to be able to share their games). I'll take it for a spin.

(and if nothing else, I'm going to steal that ripple effect for them ;) )*

* obligatory https://xkcd.com/541/

> I often wonder is "what will be the minimally viable LLM" that can work from just enough information that if it googles the rest it can provide reasonable answers?

It depends what that word "reasonable" means for your specific use-case ;)

To add my own "most relatable" quote to this thread:

> As always, please save any important work before running anything I ever write.

:')

But really I just want to add to the cacophony of appreciation in this thread :)

0x0mer, I hope you feel the love from this reaction and can bask in that warm inner glow for years to come.

> You mean that dumb app that forced you to move files into a single folder instead of adapting to your workflow was prefect?

Users in 2012 were overwhelmingly of the cohort who's metaphor for doing work on a computer was the filesystem. You opened Files with Programs, worked on them, saved them. You wanted your latest Files on all your computers (1), and you wanted to Share them (2).

Unless users were on a system managed by a sysadmin there were only really two solutions for problems (1)&(2): you would Email the File (A), or you would copy it to a Floppy/CD/USB (B) and physically move it.

Note the caveat of "in absence of a sysadmin". So either on a school or corporate work environment, or if you happened to have a geek in your family/social group who did it as a passion project. Or y'know, if _you_ were the geek you could roll your own.

So of course when Dropbox was first introduced to a technical audience they didn't get it. See the infamous thread ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863

While you're there, note the tag line in the title of the post "Throw away your USB key"

Now rereading your comment it is clearly an example of exactly what OP was referring to:

> It takes real courage for a builder to say, "It’s good enough. It’s complete. It serves the core use cases well." If people want more features? Great, make it a separate product under a new brand.

If Dropbox did not "adapt to your workflow", then just _don't use Dropbox_.

Instead you attack it as "dumb" and demand it change...and those users for whom Dropbox _was_ perfectly adapted don't have their solution anymore.

Software doesn't have to be forever changing and chasing user growth; it's not a zero-sum game. The bits don't care if no one uses them. But _people_ care if you take away their bits.

> ...we shouldn't normalize that, we should push for improvements

Agreed, you should create a new solution and put it out there! Just as suggested by the post you've replied to :)

I love the project -- even if I agree with a lot of the critique in this thread. Critique that is very high quality, professional feedback that you should take as a very big compliment.

I think every Front End developer or designer dreams of this idea(+) at some point, but you're the madlad who actually did it. It feels like you've posted an implementation of everyone's baby and tugged at our heart-strings ;)

It's fantastic, keep going.

(+) a truly consistent design system that Just Works. See GEB for why not :(

If you were going to do this for the slider approach you can arrange the labels to the `block-start` and `block-end` of the image and support non-RTL scripts/languages natively.

I learnt about it in Japan where proof-readers and editors would (or do) quickly lift a top page up and down to spot mistakes with kanji (pictographs). And sure enough, even from a page of dense script the dissonance of the error really does pop out at you.

I likewise tucked that little trick into my belt -- it comes in useful anytime you're trying to manually spot a pattern across complex data. This technique has the same "vibe" as FFTs to me: it's just neat feeling like you're getting computation from the universe for free.

Solar PV in a similar category: free electrons if you can arrange the magic rocks just right :)

Personally I'd like it if we could all skip to the _end_ of Asimov's universe and bubble along together, but it seems like we're in for the whole ride these days.

> "It's just fancy autocomplete! You just set it up to look like a chat session and it's hallucinating a user to talk to"

> "Can we make the hallucination use excel?"

> "Yes, but --"

> "Then what's the difference between it and any of our other workers?"

There are still holdouts!

Come back to me in a couple of decades when the trove of humanity's data has been pored over and drifted further out of sync with (verifiable) reality.

Hand-tuning is the only way to make progress when you've hit a domain's limits. Go deep and have fun.

I think you may be coming into this conversation with a different definition of "rich" than most people.

I daresay the label of the community is irrelevant, what matters is some other aspect effective ones share - and of course, the child in question (:

Your responses have been an appeal to tradition (“every generation thinks that”), and a dismissal of the information because of the reproducibility crisis.

Ie you are arguing that we (humans) struggle with discerning Truth, and therefore we are wrong, and everything is fine.

But taking the negative position is just as epistemologically flawed. Hence the OPs attempt to discuss the best data we can find.

Sure, that's an assertion.

But (with just as many citations), mine would be:

This boom is absolutely, 100%, fueled by the combined factors of: 1) employees outsourcing the cognitive load of their jobs to models that are, impressively "close", but not quite _as_ good as a well-trained human.

ie, we're replacing google with a fun, but terribly energy-wasteful (and _very often_ factually wrong) "make up an answer" tech.

and 2), AI "app developers" who are having fun with the previously "impossible" (*cf. https://xkcd.com/1425/) APIs of multi-modal natural language, and "didn't sci-fi warn us about this?" simulations.

Neither of which are good for productivity, if we measure productivity as "improving circumstances for the mutual commonwealth of all life". Which is the goal.

* oh, I _did_ use a citation after all.

It is an interesting article, but _far_ too sure of itself in all the wrong areas.