bluegatty

'Everything is Atoms' ok but I think that as AI advances we will have evidently more clear abstractions, which we're not seeing yet.

I think this is upside down.

AI is actually still really bad at architecture. It produces very good localized code, like an auto complete. It produces so much of it, that it can be overwhelming, but it's not remotely better than the equivalent aka an infinite number of talented humans doing the work.

The scale of it (aka 'make me a video game') is daunting and I think misinforming our intuition as to what is going on.

LLMs are brute forcing outputs and attacking math problems is not a singularity, it's just more compute.

What we are witnessing is the ability for machines to use fuzzy concepts, instead of very strict code, which allows it to map into a much greater variety of things, aka code, pdfs, web - and crunch/compute the content.

It's just compute.

It's a nativity story; faith overcoming nihilism. Explicitly in the book, obliquely (but frankly obviously) in the film.

- "Tree-based data structures are just the bread and butter of Rust." - they are not - they are the opposite of 'bread and butter'. They create nearly impossible problems for borrow checkers. Literally where the borrow checker caps out and can't fulfill it's obligations.

- "shouldn't be declaring your UI with cycles at all." - they are inherently cyclical. Parent/child and handler/emitter relations are very common. You can work around it, but unnaturally.

"Ugly state is exactly what Rust was made for. " - No. Rust forces you into constraints, which have certain paramters.

--> this is the biggest conceit of Rust - that somehow, the 'borrow checker is correct'. It is not. It is a constraint. Having to meet that constraint is in some cases beneficial, but it's mostly just limiting.

The limitation of that constraint and implications is so strong, that it keeps Rust from being mainstream.

- "Event driven and heavily async are neither a Rust strength nor a weakness"

Async in Rust is objectively hard, it's another dimensional of complexity that does not have the same impact in other languages. Asyc does create issues everywhere but not as much as in Rust. Again, another big layer of trickery for not advantage.

- " but JSON is not only "solved" in Rust but the best ser/de libraries I've ever used are in Rust." - then maybe you have never programmed in any other language?

Because the 'best' language for JSON is obviously Javascript/Typescript - and it suites most OO languages extremely well.

The question underlying all of these statements, is why anyone would ever choose Rust in the first place?

Rust brings much greater complexity for no advantage in most cases.

By any objective measure, Rust is just a 'bad choice' for all but a narrow set of things.

I think you have to add both 'developer interest', 'integration with specific libraries' and maybe 'other strategic considerations' in order for Rust to be a rational choice in a lot of cases.

Looks fun, but Rust is less well suited to UX than other langauges - tree based data structures, a lot of ugly state, event driven, heavily async, and naturally all of the json and other things that come in at that layer don't have 'very nice' libraries.

It does not leverage of Rusts advantages very well at all, and so the extra overhead is hard to justify.

I think there are definitely some key libs that would work well with rust (wgpu is nice!), but the the core language itself would ideally not be Rust.

Obviously - it can be done - and I'm sure it's a lot of fun for some devs - but I think this is fitting the circle into the square hole. (Edit - it's funny saying that because 'fitting the circle into the square hole' is literally like saying 'walkies?' or to a dog, aka 'arise - a problem to be solved!' but I think that is what I'm getting at, like what wags the tail isn't necessarily the best option)

Direct interaction, not in-person. And many more interaction with high level Russian and Chinese state actors. Huge investment from Chinese state banks and critical contracts for data collection.

We know what they have said, and they are not targeting him, they are targeting the spy.

I think it's very unfair to suggest they are targeting him, when there isn't even mention if it.

He's obviously entangled in this so he'll at least be the subject but beyond that it's not fair to say.

It would have to be 'very, very serious' for the US Gov under a super pro-AI/pro-business agenda to take down their #1 CEO over something indirect.

Musk has direct meetings with Putin for gosh sakes.

Elon Musk makes nazi salutes and says radically unhinged things, and does many things which are arguably illegal.

Most investors don't care.

Unless there was some 'materially detrimental disclosure' this is just tabloid.

The fact that Elon has a literal harem, Tesla has $500M loan from Chinese banks with all sorts of conditions etc.

Elon literally does Zoom calls with Vladimir freaking Putin.

I think this is a nothing burger.

"The crime here isn't giving secrets to the Chinese, it is helping them evade export controls. "

If that were true, then it's fair game, but I don't think that's what is going on.

US gov has not stated they are targeting him.

Also, there is a gigantic difference between 'avoidance' and 'evasion', like with taxes.

We'll see.

Strategy changes all the time. It will change overnight with the election results. What matters most is the information underlying that strategy, like, if ASML was coming out with some very specific new thing that would tilt the industry - that would be key.

It's an issue, but vastly over stated in the press.

"I'd expect a board to fire a CEO over this, "

God god, no.

There's very little he could ever accidentally tell someone that would matter that much.

Other than handing over very detailed schemas etc, there's almost nothing important he could tell them.

Maybe some future ideas and plans, maybe some government things about the Administration, it's small peanuts.

Nvidia is an operational success, their IP is embedded within deep layers of know how and expertise.

He's the 'father' of that org, he set the tone, they like him there.

Nvidia would risk being an Intel without him.

He's forced to - he would not make the statement unless he had to come clean with it.

It is literally not straight from the source.

Source:

"initiating an independent investigation in light of recent reporting that founder and CEO Jensen Huang has been the target of a foreign intelligence effort."

They are investigating a situation where their CEO was the target of an Op - that's totally reasonable and doesn't remotely hint that he has done something wrong.

This is the right thing for the board to do: "We are investigating the situation because we have been informed that foreign actors may have targeted our staff".

No - this is not true.

They are not 'investigating the CEO' - they are investigating the situation.

In the press release they are investigating the fat that Jensen 'was the target of an operation'.

I think the misrepresentative nature of your comment proves my point.

" has been launched if for no other purpose than to rule that out.

This is false and basically slander.

The statement from Nvidia indicates no such thing.

They are investigating the fact that Jensen was the target of a Foreign Intelligence Operation - literally those are the words.

The target of the government's investigation is her (Alice Huang) not him.

They are not 'investigating Jensen', it's an unfair misrepresentation.

Isn't this a general TUI kind of problem, endemic to all CLI? What does this have to do with Deno specifically?

Nobody needs to be told twice they are going to be victim of a honey pot.

They are 1) covering their butts 2) placating external influences (probably state dept) 3) trying to find out what happened, but not have it be exposed 4) Avoiding risk of their Goose laying Golden Eggs at all costs.

The man is bringing them gazillions, they are not going to flip him over like a cheezeburger.

He's replacable but it comes with gigantic risk.

Board's tend to enable thing that fill their coffers with money and protect that over everything else.

Language matters.

"XXX is being investigated" implies there's some kind of possible wrongdoing here.

There might be some of that, but this is not likely the focus of the investigation.

They're investigating a potential influence operation involving the CEO, which may overlap with investigating some kind of culpability on his part.

It's an unfair editorial headline.

- edit -

Here is the literal source:

"" initiating an independent investigation in light of recent reporting that founder and CEO Jensen Huang has been the target of a foreign intelligence effort.""

Jensen is not specifically under investigation, if anything the language is sympathetic to him being the target of a foreign Op.

The US government is investigating Alice Huang (not Jensen) for obvious reasons.

Obviously the 'bar' is different for the CEO than for someone acting with criminal intent, but it's not far to say that Jensen is under investigation.

Terminals are 'activity dense' and usually have a lot of key cusotmizations.

You can't even have 'tabs' inside of Claude Desktop, which is a dealbreaker for most power users.

No, because you need only type the word once and it's in the dictionary.

""GUI is less verbose with the nitty gritty hidden in expandable sections, ""

? The GUI has nothing to do with that.

If you use Chat / Work / Code <- that's the differentiation.

So 'Code' in 'Gui' is identical to Claude Code except for the visual layout.

If you use Work or Chat, which are not optimized for Coding you'll see a different experience.

If you use iTerm or Ghostty and set a key combo to switch tabs you can very easily switch between tabs and the TUI generally gives more dense information.

Usually people migrate to TUI not the other way around.

I think that there are reasons to use GUI - if there is deeper integration with Git or an issue tracker - or - in VSCode - for navigating files etc. - definitely those things are valid.

But for raw AI the getting a TUI to work the way you want it is ideal.

" If I made a physical keyboard that stops keys from working when you're about to finish typing something I don't want you to type, but you can still circumvent it, I still made a censorship keyboard."

No, this is the wrong analogy.

Keyboard helpers are 'positive aid' vs 'no aid', not 'restriction' vs 'no restriction'.

It's akin to seeing the 'default' on search to 'not have adult conent' -> you can make the adjustment yourself.

Helping you type the 'n-word' is a positive act.

It's perfectly reasonable to have any words they even remotely deem sensitive not in the dictionary.

The first time you meaningfully type a word though - it should go in the dictionary like a normal word and that's that.

If they were stopping people from putting words in the dictionary or making it harder - now that would be censorship.

If they won't put 'whatever' in the auto-option feature that would be 'restrictive' and bad.

But otherwise, it's 100% reasonable for them to chose the words they want to help you type.

And FYI this is also different from censoring search which could not be undone.

Mixing models almost assuredly does increase accuracy in many cases - I do it all day every day and I can only say from experience though not true objective benchmarks.

I use codex/claude code all day every day and built an MCP that allow them to use each other as sub-agents.

I will not allow claude code to touch my code with any design changes without codex auditing it, and visa versa.

I believe this is the case merely because they are different models that will provide varied perspectives, and smart enough to identify issues on each other's work.

I'm not sure if there's research to back this up but I think it's fairly obvious, and also FYI diminishing marginal return - I'm not sure if a '3rd perspective' would be worth it in most cases.

GPT Pro is the pro setting on OAI's consume chat model. It is only available online or API.

It's branded as a separate model, but really it's like an 'ultrathinking' mode of OAI's model.

The details are not public but it's parallel test time compute and multi search, aka the model reasons along different vectors and compares answers.

If 'feels like' a smarter model, even though I'm pretty sure it's a synthetic variation of Astra.

It is by far the 'smartest model' if you were to benchmark it, and many of OAIs released were based on this.

There are few or no benchmark scores on it because it's not suitable for harness testing or coding, it's almost designed to be 'one shot' or 'few shot'.

It takes 8-25 to answer, and if you give it a sufficiently sophisticated prompt, it will think for 1 hour.

It requires OAI's 'pro' account aka the $200/month one.

It's the best open secret in AI, I can't recommend it enough.

You wouldnt normally use a dumb model as a personal agent to get a smarter model to do work, but you may make use of that mechanism in some kind of automation process.

But there are definitely cases.

GPT Pro is an absolutely spectacular model, that almost cannot be used without 'prompt help'. Or rather, it can only be effectively leveraged by very intricate prompting, which requires the help of another agent.

I typically use Claude Code to write prompts for GPT Pro , and cut and paste the prompt in, and let GPT Pro work for 20 minutes, then take the response back to Claude Code and work with Opus to consider the results.

Opus is 'dumber' (nominally) then GPT Pro.

Just ask. The agents already know how. To boost it, have it read the exact docs that OAI/Anthropic provide.

Asking Claude to make prompts is like a Math teacher stuck working at a cafe about Math problem, the just light up.

They are very good at at it.

Both of those orchestrations will work for sure.

Smart agent to orchestrate cheaper agents for labour.

Dumber agents to be very explicit about asking smarter agents for requests that require deep information.

This is a thing - the SOTA models really light up the more information you can provide them, and humans are too lazy / incapable of doing that in every prompt.

Entirely depends on what you are trying to do.

Edit: you can also use a smart agent to ask another smart agent, obviously, which is good for personal workflows.

No.

Shopify's core offer is a very long gnarly tail with any number of detail and moving parts, a massive eco system of 3rd party vendors, integations, and developer community.

Their service is sticky and switching costs are high.

It would literally cost more in Claude Code tokens to hack a prototype, than to sign up and host Shopify and get 100x the features. It's $0 to build the prototype and $1/mo to literally have a full product for the first 3 months.

At the same time, Claude Code can build you a full variation of Cloudflare's core product, and with less than $1M you can scale across 300 regions if you really put your mind to it.

LMAO you have it complete upside down, and if you think Lovable is a 'wrapper' around AI maybe you should try building a working app.

Lovable is a layer of abstraction, becoming as as complex as Shopify.

"It takes decades to build the kind of network cloudflare has."

It takes literally no time. Cloudflare's network could be emulated with proper planning and enough budget, and turned on instantly. 'Servers in 300 cities' is a medium sized challenge, but most importantly, it's a relatively clear path.

On the customer side, Cloudflare (in most cases) could be replaced as quickly as individuals replace their VPNs.

Shopify for example is ' just some siple HTML and checkout' - of course not - they are dominant and growing because there's a lot of complex interdependence, switching costs are much higher, their buyers are less technical and much less likely to want to change, and building a Shopify replacement involves hitting a lot of checkmarks.

Lovable started as a wrapper just as Shopify started with something simple, but they've quickly evolved.

AWS could snap their fingers and decide to knock out Cloudflare, it's a 'Commodity Plus' that came to the fore in a time when a specific need was there, and now people are turning to it out of convenience.

Of Lovable, Wix, Shopify, Figma, Stripe - Cloudflare is in the riskiest position because of the inherent commoditizability of their tech and the relatively low switching costs.