andyfilms1

Odin is not like JS or something where you'd need a VM or transpilation process to target an embedded system. It's just C with nicer syntax and modern data structures, there's no "squeezing" required. You just compile for the target you want to run on.

Here's a UI framework, if you scroll down you'll see it on a Raspi Pico: https://github.com/MadlyFX/Ansuz

You can look at my repo here: https://github.com/MadlyFX/odin-embedded-boilerplate

I don't believe Xtensa (ESP32) is supported yet, but people have been asking for it, so it may happen at some point. ARM is well supported now though, obviously.

I've been using Odin for about 6 months now, and to be honest, it's hard to find fault with it. I've used it for STM32 microcontroller firmware, web and desktop applications, and all are performant and compile quickly.

My one issue is (and I'm fully aware it will never happen) I do wish there was some sort of first-class solution to inheritance. I've grown to love procedural programming, but some problems really are just better solved with a more OOP approach. Just because classes exist does not mean they need to be used.

But as far as a language to "get stuff done" with as few tradeoffs as possible, Odin is about as good as I can imagine a language being.

And therein lies the rub. Unreal 5 is massive and complex, and there comes a point where it takes longer to understand how to layer on your own customizations than just to start from scratch. Especially for indie developers.

I wanted to make a little editor utility (the UE editor is built in UE) that changed the way viewport selection was handled. I think I got to 5 layers of abstraction before I gave up. 5 layers, for a left-click object select.

Can I ask a dumb question to those smarter than I: Is this way of visualizing temperature/pressure accurate, or is it an abstraction for convenience in the same way that depicting electrons "flowing through wires" is?

The key difference is the founder built a product in search of a problem to solve, rather than the other way around.

The "secret" is just to talk to people in the field they're trying to "revolutionize," and ideally observe them work. Often, people become blind to workflow problems and workarounds become normal process. They never even consider to look for a better way to do something. Those are the opportunities for founders to solve.

But what I've seen a lot is founders just arbitrarily coming up with an idea that sounds cool on paper, raising money, and only realizing too late that there is zero actual market fit.

When I was younger, I was always paranoid when I reached out to somebody and didn't hear back. Now that I'm older and busier, I totally get it. Clearly state who you are, what you want, and what your timeline is. It's far easier to reply to a message like that, than to parse paragraphs of fluffery looking for an ask.

I will say--as someone who has fielded late night troubleshooting calls--I totally understand OP's point of view. It's reasonable to expect that you will be able to answer questions about something that you ship, or brainstorm ways to solve a problem a customer is encountering while using something you provided them.

The obvious counterargument is "well, just ask the AI for those answers," but the AI lacks the context and experience that you have. Sometimes, genuinely, the user really is just "holding it wrong," but none of the current AI models would ever admit that, and you'd spend hours trying to solve an unsolvable problem.

Gridfinity is fun, but just about any other organizational method is easier and faster.

Additionally, without the knowledge of how you got from A to B, you don't know what else is possible (or impossible.) In the process of doing something manually, you may stumble across a particular setting or effect that creates something you never even considered. And now, that is knowledge you can use on the next project.

I was going to say, I don't understand what this does that Revit doesn't already do better. I guess it's a fun demo, but I doubt this was a problem that needed solving.

Absolutely. One of the major purposes of art is as a way to communicate things that can not be put into words. And if that's the case, how could one ever hope to create it with a prompt?

Correct, it's addiction.

The comment wasn't about CC specifically. If you rely (like, can't ship without it) on any model that you don't control, it's not really your product. If Dario decides to increase pricing 500% because it's Tuesday, and you can't work without CC, you really have no choice but to open your wallet.

I expect in the next year or so, we'll stop seeing headlines like "Anthropic buys $15b of compute from SpaceX" and we'll start seeing headlines like "Uber's AI department licenses GPT 6.2 as the foundation for their internal model," or something like that.

Smaller companies will have departments that distill larger models into something more specifically manageable and useful for them. At least, that's my personal prediction :)

Surely a company as large as Microsoft is actively attempting to build their own models. They couldn't possibly have expected to stake the future of their software development on the conditions of a third party company?

It's sustainable in the literal sense, I.E. a tailor can simply tailor forever without needing to constantly worry about keeping up with new tools or technologies, or needing to upgrade or change their methodology constantly.

The tech world is obsessed with moving fast and breaking things, and you can't just do the same thing forever and expect it to always work.

A little suggestion in case you decide to try again, just don't worry about constraints. If you're making one-off parts for yourself, just sketch what you need and don't worry about trying to make it parametric. Get the part done and move on.

If you use something like OnShape or Fusion, you could easily get comfortable enough to model those parts in about a day. Once get the hang of it, you'll be amazed how fast you can work.

It will take much longer than a day for AI to get to this level, so there's not much to lose by just learning how to use the software now :)

Replacing your workers with AI:

--You lose control over their "salary"

--You lose control over their "schedule"

--Your company becomes reliant on another party that does not share your interests or values, and can stop working for you on a whim for any reason

But AI is definitely good and trade unions are definitely bad, apparently...

I genuinely think any ML approach to detecting ML will always be unreliable. Models can be intentionally poisoned or tricked, and there is a lot of incentive from AI users to do so. It will always be a losing battle against a moving target.

I think in the long run, deterministic algorithmic approaches with complex pipelines will be needed.

Oh man, a non-web version of this would be an insta-buy from me

Their engineers are still trying to figure out how to make backlit keys. Just give them another two decades, I'm sure they'll crack it.

Oh no! Anyway

It's lunchtime

Sure, but local AI is still a black box. They can be influenced by training data selection, poisoning, hidden system prompts, etc. That recent Wordpress supply chain hack goes to show that the rug can still be pulled even if the software is FOSS.

Sure, but unless you're training them yourself they can still be compromised with poisoning or bias. They're still black boxes even if you're running them locally.

You're absolutely right!

I would bet any amount that when the time comes to turn AI into a utility, they will fight it tooth and nail.

Package manager incidents (like leftpad) have shown that just because it's open source doesn't mean it can't do damage to your project.