CSSer

Are you considering jobs that are extraordinarily demanding? What if you're an ER Doctor? Or an Air Traffic Controller? Or someone getting started in their career in their early 20s, when most of us possess the unique combination of a lack of life experience that would prevent exploitation and ambition? For these jobs, I can easily sympathize with the idea that after a workday they're too tired to develop personally. Moreover, it's a manager's job to sap every ounce of productivity out of a person. Modern technology increasingly makes this possible. Even seemingly mundane jobs like working in a call center can be so orchestrated that using the bathroom makes them fall behind. And productivity has done nothing but rise for decades!

I also don't see how your final paragraph really refutes rather than just restates their opinion. Hobbies produce projects and business ventures all the time. Someone also has to find some way or another to socialize with the community. Volunteering is a great way to do that.

Doesn't seem that bad if you're convinced they're the only viable market dominator.

My experience mid-2024 was pretty much the same, and when I look now things do seem easier to find. The only caveat is the wider white collar market still seems pretty affected. I have a handful of friends in advertising who have been laid off and looking for more than six months.

My friends have told me that here in LA there are positions but many want you to move or commute excessively far, and there's real wage suppression going on. Also, many of the positions are "unicorn" roles, where they want someone with very niche experience. It's an employer's market for them.

You don't take photos on trips or with dogs?

> You can do it all 100% free per the guide which describes the process end-to-end

D:

Nooo! Please read.

Your before and afters are good. It's clear you have good qualities, but you can present and pitch them better. The stringent objective approach to your value-add is doing you a disservice. You allude to the fact that it's an art that takes time to get right yourself already.

It's like unit tests vs integration tests. It's easy to think you're testing one thing when you're actually testing another.

You present this as the idea that you understand what objectively makes a portrait flattering (true/verifiable), and the objective evaluation by women using a scoring rubric lends an air of ostensible credibility that suggests the kind of profiling you might see in an integration test named "Good Dating Profile Photo". I think what you have instead is unit tests for acceptability, inoffensiveness, and presentability plus your uniquely gathered insight into their personality. Fluoride makes toothpaste work, not the fact that 4 out of 5 dentists agree. Your learned insight is the fluoride. I guess maybe the men respond to the "4 out of 5" statement already, but it's so easily refutable.

Using your photo as an example, I can see your face clearly now, but I also can't see where you are, your full profile, why you might be there, who you're with, or what you're doing. You also don't seem quite at ease. It's completely sterile. I wouldn't blink if I saw this on your LinkedIn or GitHub profile. On there all I'm trying to verify is that it's you! But on a dating profile I'm looking for a sense of you. I want to see your best qualities, which aren't always visually straightforward in men, presented in a flattering light. You help people find that! By the way, your other photo did have those qualities. I just couldn't see you!

As a single woman still barely holding onto this age bracket (praying to the power of anonymity right now), the fact that this exists and is so clearly targeted at men who honestly look fine for such a high price is sad. If you told me you spent this much money on your profile to meet me, I would immediately subtract whatever smart and attractive points I unconsciously added to you and add them to your insecurity score instead.

edit: In case I must spell it out scoring people like this is weird. Also his own photo is terrible. I'm rarely so negative but seriously guys please save your money.

Yes, exactly. Name and shame.

Wow, and at essentially the same price!

I suppose another interesting thing about this observation is that this is true about the universe too! Einstein thought God doesn't play dice with the universe and Niels Bohr proved him wrong.

So either it's an interesting statement because it's infinitely generalizable or not interesting for the same reason.

Weird, especially since a lot of us have similar opinions. Was he saying that from the start and since shifted focus to it or is it completely new? The conversation about cost isn't exactly a new one.

Can you speak a little more to this? I'm curious what kind of parameters one must consider/monitor and what kind of novel things could go wrong.

> This support will be dedicated towards Blender core development, to maintain and continuously improve foundational features like the Blender Python API

Pretty much spells it out. They have an interest in extending/supporting the ability for Claude/CC to use and interact with Blender. There may be gaps in endpoints that Anthropic needs to enable certain patterns of automated usage.

You're still around :)

It really does make one wonder... If you came to work tomorrow and I said you need to donate blood to keep working here, would you?

Yes. You can do it a set number of times, opting to either retake the course for a better grade or simply not take it again. Either way it shows on your transcript.

Exams almost filtered me out of this industry before I even got started. I later went on to be a lead developer! I went to a rural high school with a poor math curriculum. I understood the concepts, but I was slow. When I got to undergrad, my first calc professor gave us a 60 question test with 50 minutes of allotted time. He told us if we couldn't do the problems fast enough we weren't cut out for the work and it would be better if we quit now. I've never felt more inadequate in my life. It's one of my only Ws.

That's not "kinda the same" at all. You can feel however you like about the strategy, but the constitution specifically doesn't elaborate on how many justices make up the supreme court. Article III simply states the following:

> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

There is a huge gulf between ignoring standing law or a supreme court ruling and ignoring precedent. One involves choosing not to acknowledge i.e. disobeying, an authority, and the other involves choosing to act differently than has generally been expected in the past. Moreover, at least in recent history, it's primarily the Republicans who began the practice of ignoring precedent, long before our slow descent into where we are now: blatantly flaunting the law. See Merrick Garland's ignored nomination or the house's recent ludicrous delay of swearing in an elected representative for just two easy examples of this.

I mean none of this in any partisan fashion. It's simply a matter of fact. The idea that the GOP and the Democratic parties somehow engage in the same level or kind of antics and are thus deserving of the same level of nihilistic apathy as some kind of moderate position is charitably tragically misinformed.

Honestly, thank you. I and many of my other friends have had this happen so much that we don't even react beyond an eyeroll, empty stare, or slight look of contempt for the perpetrator, when we tell each other the stories. I've had a ten minute drive in an unfamiliar city feel like an hour because a brief moment of conversation turned into a man repeatedly asking for my number, explicit details about where I live (not just the city, but the neighborhood, streets and even using phrases like "How can I find you if I visit?"), and my social media accounts. He did all of this despite clear, polite and repeated declinations towards his requests. He said things like "I'd like to be your friend" and further "I'd like to get to know you", and despite being firmly and clearly told, "No, thank you," each time he continued onward until the moment I stepped out of the vehicle. He was not subtle. It was very direct, and his tone sounded more and more frustrated as he persisted.

For anyone reading who has not previously considered it, please imagine what it feels like to be in a moving, locked vehicle you're not in control of, in an unfamiliar place, with someone who is much stronger and taller than you who's not respecting your verbal boundaries. What guarantee do you have it will stop there? What could happen if I truly upset him? How much more unpleasant could it become for me? Meanwhile, I'm paying for this. Even with the option, I'm still paying with the extra time I willingly choose to wait.

Yes, everyone. The username makes it clear. Really though, the supreme arrogance of calling the whole of an entirely different industry mediocre is practically indicative of our craft at this point.

I'm not talking about LLMs diluting search. I'm saying users are using LLMs to search more than search itself, including in search engines.

It's because the search engine is being eaten by the LLM. I'm not suggesting that it's a perfect substitute. It's just what I feel is happening.

This is seriously a good point. Maybe that and typos or bad phrasing

And this is what I exhaustively tell people who insist that [tech company] is listening. My reply boils down to, "Why would they need to when you already send them everything in writing?"

We've moved beyond telling people not to forget and have entered "expect nothing less" territory

Tailwind didn't win for either of these reasons (setting aside any personal positive/negative feelings I have about it). It won (in LLMs) because that's how the ML model works. The training data places the HTML and the styling info together. There's an extremely high signal to noise ratio because of that. You're going to get much fewer tokens that have random styles in it and require several fewer (or maybe even no) thought loops to get working styles. The surface API of selectors is also large and complex. Tailwind utility classes are not. They're either present on an element or not, and it's often the case that supporting classnames for the UI goal are present in close proximity on sibling, parent, or child elements. Even with vast amounts and multiple decades of more CSS to compare against in the training data, I suspect this is the case. Plus, the information is just spread more thinly and more flexible in terms of organization in a stylesheet. The result is you get lots of extra style rules that you didn't need/want and it's harder to one-shot or even few-shot any style implementation. If I'm even remotely right about this, it worth considering this impact in many other languages and applications. I've found the adverse effect to be reduced slightly as models/agents have improved but I feel it's still very much present. It's totally possible to structure data in a way that makes it easier to train on.

The best way I can describe it is not that different from explaining how to effectively use a search engine in the past.

I'm mostly interested in how the article more or less accidentally highlights the central problem of the whole industry. Training needs to be solved for these businesses to be viable and sustainable. These products are obviously valuable and monetizable but not at the burn rate we're seeing, and knowledge doesn't stand still. In fact, if the usefulness of these tools is to be believed, it's accelerating. So how do you shorten that feedback cycle without obliterating margin? Software is a largely attractive business because your margins expand dramatically once it's stable, and it's winner-take-all the majority of the time. From an investment perspective, we're looking at something that is not that. And we're supposed to pretend that's acceptable because if we squint really hard we forget it's still a mechanical turk? This ain't a scene, it's an arms race...

Figure right after A6 is pretty striking. Ask people if they expect to use AI and a vast majority say yes. Ask if they expect to use AI for specific applications and no more than a third say yes in any industry. That should be telling imo. What we have is a tool that looks impressive to any non-SME for a lot of applications. I would caution against the idea that benefits are obvious.

You're making an odd request, but I'll bite because it seems sincere. I'm younger! I didn't live through the period, and I'm not a statistician, but I have to ask if this kind of representation is really a gimmick?

For some, it's very meaningful. That character is bisexual, not gay, and it's pretty authentic representation. The reason why it's not so focused on is because people like this, especially at that time, often don't care much for labels. That scene you mention is with a closeted man. This is not unheard of. You may not have had this experience personally, but does that mean it didn't happen? The campy part? Okay. The show wasn't perfect. It did get canceled, after all. But it worries me that you singled this particular thing out because this is obviously a political topic, and you missed the fact that the scene did demonstrate some things about the character, like his recklessness, impulsiveness and opportunism.

He complicated something that could've been simpler, and he did this because he had a hard time separating his personal thoughts and feelings from his work. This is a theme that plays out a lot in his interactions, and I wonder if your understandable discomfort and lack of familiarity with the other aspects of the scene colored your perception here.

Do you mean in terms of adding one more feature or in terms of how a feature you're adding almost works but not quite right?

I find the latter a lot more challenging to cut my losses when it's on a good run (and often even when I know I could just write this by hand), especially because there's as much if not more intrigue about whether the tool can accomplish it or not. These are the moments where my mind has drifted to think about it the exact way you describe it here.