bavell

And comfyUI workflows. People have been doing this for awhile now.

Asking for a walkthrough of the codebase? Sure you linked to the right page?

I was expecting tips on code review instead based on your comment and GP.

One of the most sane and dispassionate takes I've seen. Kudos.

Great posts! So far [2] is the only "claw" that has caught my interest, mostly because it isn't trying to do everything itself in some bespoke, NIH way.

Who needs "claws" when you've got paws!

I think about it like a series of waves in a pool. One end has wave generators (the lasers) spaced appropriately such that resulting waves hitting the other end interfere just right and create a unified wavefront (same phase, amplitude, frequency).

NB: just my layman's understanding

Haha, this reminds me of all the stable diffusion "in the style of X artist" incantations.

Anthropic got rid of controlling the thinking budget by parsing your prompt - now it's a setting in /config.

Thanks for sharing! I've been gravitating towards this sort of workflow already - just seems like the right approach for these tools.

Indeed! Also accepting projects/clients you actually want to work with.

I've also never heard that use of "skill floor" before. The "floor/ceiling" descriptors imply min/max constraints.

Anthropic has a prompt improver tool: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt...

Hard disagree, clients/users often don't know what the best/right solution is, simply because they don't know what's possible or they haven't seen any prior art.

I'd much rather have a conversation with them to discuss their current problems and workflow, then offer my ideas and solutions.

I'm still not that interested in setting up openclaw, but this implementation actually looks/sounds pretty good.

Thanks for sharing!

Might be some interesting nuggets in your article but my eyes rolled so hard at this part I had to stop reading:

"The system does not assign tasks.

It defines gravity."

Helios looks cool though!

Agreed. I wish more people understood the difference between tokens, embeddings, and latent space encodings. The actual "thinking" if you can call it that, happens in latent space. But many (even here on HN) believe the thinking tokens are the thoughts themselves. Silly meatbags!

> Going from zero to one employee is hard.

Story of my life the last 5-10 years haha. Hard to take such a big risk without having a very solid position.

I'm taking an AI-first approach with a project I wouldn't have accepted otherwise, to get a better understanding of how much I can delegate and how quickly I can get it done. Could open up a lot of doors if successful. There are many more projects I'd be willing to pitch/accept if I didn't have to do all the grunt work. Quality still needs to be there though.

Be self-employed and be your own boss!

Ooops, now you have multiple bosses (each client).

Interesting install method haha

Run /usage or configure your statusline

No pelican for me :(

On the flop side, maybe there wouldn't be as many garbage papers printed if there were any actual negative consequences. It's not so simple as you make it out to be.

HN is the wrong forum for this.

Claude definitely has some API token security baked in, it saw some API keys in a log file of mine the other day and called them out to me as a security issue very clearly. In this case it was a false positive but it handled the situation well and even gave links to reset each token.

Love it. I need to keep this in mind for my personal projects!

I've played the above games at least 100x more than I've played any AAA titles this year :)

Some very fun indie games I've been playing this past year (lots of early access):

- Hexarchy / Rogue hex (Civ-like)

- The Last Caretaker

- Captain of Industry (factorio-like, was posted here on HN by dev awhile back)

- 9 kings

- Super Fantasy Kingdom

- Manor Lords

- Astronomics

- Heart of the Machine

Whew boy, your comments are great examples of not being curious, understanding or promoting civil discussion.

> You obviously know they can't be trusted, you just said so.

A baseless accusation with no supporting evidence. I never asked anyone to trust anyone else. I didn't even assert the idea was true, just interesting to consider. I merely thought the idea was interesting as a layman with little knowledge of evolutionary biology.

> Why not just say that as a disclaimer to the video

Because you're putting words in my mouth that I don't believe.

> What "certain crowds" would that be

Curmudgeons like you.

> When you uncritically recommend and parrot bullshit

Really? I recommended something? I thought I said I enjoyed a video talking about a pet theory relevant to the topic at hand, which I had recently learned of.

This whole "framing is a huge tell", and "reliably revives strawmen, Intelligent-Design-adjacent language, and manufactured doubt, while producing zero new knowledge" shtick is boring and wrong. I've been atheist since I could critically think for myself and it's silly how off-base you are.

Since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject and confident in your position, can you point me to something I can read instead of just taking your word for it? Otherwise you're no better than them. I skimmed a few wikipedia pages [0][1] and didn't find the morphology "variables" Brett was discussing.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you just pattern matched on Rogan/Weinstein, typed out your reply and don't actually know what was being discussed. The tone and tenor of your comments so far would seem to indicate so. Your entire objection boils down to "I don't like them and no one should listen to them". Light on substance, heavy on the ad hominem - not exactly persuasive.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

1) No one asked why it's being down voted (to... -1, the horror). I'm not here for internet points.

2) This isn't my field - I am not making any claims, merely relaying what I thought was an interesting concept/mechanism I hadn't heard of before, that I thought other curious individuals here might also think was interesting. Isn't that the entire point of HN? I would have very much appreciated links or something to Google over this bizarre analysis of why my comment is downvoted. I didn't know this wasn't novel and was accepted science.

3) I understand Bret/Joe aren't looked upon favorably by certain crowds, particularly on this forum. I tried to get ahead of the "but didn't you know they can't be trusted!" comments and attempt to focus on the substance. If the substance is wrong, great! Let's talk about that.

4) You are assuming malice where there is none, and calling me disrespectful and insisting I must know things. I find that quite disrespectful and uncalled for. Not everyone has your opinions or knows what you know. 10k a day and all that https://xkcd.com/1053/

HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

... training IS learning.