mattbrewsbytes

I think some of those tasks are part of the fun of a trip - doing the research on locations, events, restaurants, etc. You stumble through a bunch of things and little nuggets of that sit in your brain and then when you're on the trip they might come up - one place is abruptly closed, something looks like a bummer in person, etc. Without doing that research yourself then on the trip you have a list of things and aren't really knowledgable about alternatives.

Like I said, I'm not the target audience for a personal assistant. That does sound like a more ideal UX than what chat gippity and the others offer though. I would expect that with Meta - they really get the UX mostly right for people.

Meta's active user base doesn't care about privacy.

Most personal tasks take trivial amounts of time these days. Does a 5th grade teacher or an auto mechanic need a personal assistant? Do we need to be able to book a trip faster? It feels very gimmicky to me, but I realize I'm not their target audience.

Given that, I do think Meta will probably get the lions share of B2C AI and they have a proven track record of using personal data to serve ads and make a lot of profit. If they capture more of their user base's time, it keeps them engaged and away from a list of competitors. If Meta starts crushing it in this fashion I could see IPO's of OpenAI and Anthropic land like fart in church.

I think we're a few decades away, at least, from seeing a robot on something like a residential construction site. Sure they look good in a flat controlled environment, but humans have a hard time walking around a construction site. Then there is the dexterity issues that they have an human hands excel at. The startup cost of a robot is probably 4x the cost of an entry level tradesperson, at least.

This topic is similar to jigs in woodworking - you can get all fancy and over-engineer it but in the end, does it improve the product/output? If a fancy jig and a gross looking home-made jig both produce a 90 degree corner, what is the added benefit?

I think people put way too much emphasis on things like this with conclusions that they are faster and therefore its better. There is Pareto's law and a point of no return on invested time with this type of endeavor. I would feel better if people started off with "I did this because I can and I like doing things like this" vs. some argument that its better in some way.

Some of these stories are similar in nature to people escaping <insert cult-like religion> once they realize whats actually going on. Alignment to a company's mission is good but it shouldn't be followed like a religion.

Why do people working in tech consistently get disillusioned into some company's mission statement or the equivalent? Its easy to just say the simplest reason is money, but this has been going on for decades though. You don't see the same attraction to adult entertainment (gambling, video, etc.) software jobs so there is obviously a line a lot of people won't cross. Those industries are at least honest about what they do, its not hidden behind some mission statement.

By all indications the shallowest reasoning is once someone can "cash out" thats when their values matter more. Maybe there is an element of maturity that happens after working for 5+ years that kicks in? Maybe it really is achieving FU money? It would be interesting to hear honest accounts from people that went through that cycle across more industries than AI.

Talent-wise some of those most recent teams had no business being in the playoffs if you just looked at the roster/stats.

I feel like his coaching leveled them up. It will be interesting to see if he writes any books about his process, etc.

I saw a headline that Muse was leaking people's contact info. There was a DEFCON presentation in 2025 on how they (hackers) coerced private/personal data out of a model (openai maybe). That has been patched most likely.

Meta doesn't have a great track record of protecting data.

Whats the use case where this, or other personal assistant/agents, are helpful and not gimmicky for average consumers (i.e. not tech nerds like all of us)? Say a person that is a car salesperson at a dealer? Or a teacher?

What would they use this for in their personal life? What does it unlock that they can't do today? Scheduling things? Buying things? These are so easy now for nearly anything. Reminders? phones have apps for that, computers do too. People can already dictate all sorts of things via speech (siri, etc.)

I totally get the professional use cases, I just don't see B2C other than gimmicky things. So I think that means Muse/Meta wins this out, people using that have already succumbed to giving up their data for "free".

My specific power tool advice would be to skip the miter saw, circular saw and possibly table saw and get a decent track saw for $500 US. Its a circular saw, you can also use it for angles, maybe with proper planning doing compound ones with a couple cuts, I've never tried.

Also if you set aside a certain budget for hobbies, etc. don't feel guilty about spending on it, go with the philosophy that is guilt-free spending. If you have fun and then lose interest, as happens with hobbies, you can sell the tools. But also see what you can get done with a small set of tools and see what you like first. Taking classes helps narrow in on what you like doing. I learned I like the mystique of hand tools but don't have the patience to do that 100%.

Well naturally, Basecamp is collaboration software that class of apps probably belongs on the web.

There are probably others that don't need HTML user interfaces. I wasn't suggesting to use VB but there has to be modern UI native/client app frameworks or libraries. The problem IT departments had (speaking from personal experience) was the variation of client machines, DLL "hell" (shared library version conflicts) and patching. If the app is delivered and run as a container on the client's machine, a lot of those issues go away.

People are reading into moving to native apps for each OS for an email app as a move away from Rails or that Rails is dead. The hot-take headline could be "Web applications are dead!" Rails, Django, Laravel, HTMLX, every one of them is in the same spot Rails is in.

We as an industry have been abusing HTTP and HTML for 2+ decades now by building web apps that were traditionally installed client/server applications or standalone client applications. There was a time in the industry that managing all the OS versions, patches, etc. was extremely labor intensive, hence the move to the web. If the cost of building native apps is near zero, in comparison to before AI, then how many web applications are better suited to client/server apps?

Take everyone's favorite app (sarcasm) - ticket tracking for IT or software work. Back in the day (late 90's) this was an installed app, the UI was extremely responsive and restrictive. People building native apps in Visual Basic didn't have to deal with HTML, CSS, and all the trade-offs of a markup language for an application, they had modules/components they could build for UIs. There wasn't weird DOM hierarchies, a data transform to text, send it over HTTP with auth, protect the web server that is open to anyone on the planet to hack, transform from text to data types, save to a database. The native app had a database driver in it or nearby and you did SQL from the app to your database server.

We can containerize application runtimes now. Look at what 37signals did with ONCE as an example, yes they are Rails apps but they could be anything that reduces IT install time compared to the '90s.

My takeaway from that keynote (watched the whole thing) is we need to re-think everything in software: process, tech stacks, architecture, etc. as the industry moves forward. AI has advanced a lot in what it can do in the last 10 months, it might plateau at some point and become another usable tool, but what it opens up is the ability to do things differently because the cost of creating (and throwing away crap output and re-creating) is very cheap.

The web as an application delivery model is very complicated compared to building small native apps. If your average Joe or Jane is going to be creating apps, I would think the thing to reach for is not web.

We're going to have a bunch of hardly used libraries/frameworks that might converge on a single one. Similar to the surge in JS frameworks/libraries from a few years back and where we are now.

Is squeezing a lot more performance beneficial to a business? or is it a small amount of VPS cost per month difference?

It helps to be clear, at least with yourself, about if you're doing something because you can/want to or if there are actual business reasons.

Do you automatically dismiss everything someone says based on their opinions on other topics not relevant to their main job? Is everything always absolutes?

DHH or anyone else spouting opinions on social media is hardly qualified to be setting policies for countries. Social media is also hardly the place to have any sort of debate on those topics.

So what would you pick for producing an MVP web app fast that you also want to run in production, maintain, patch and scale that has a solid eco-system of pre-built libraries you can just plug in to solve problems?

I have an ipad and it came with Garage Band to create music. I toyed around with that a little. I think thats like with AI - people will play around with it, figure some things out but do they have the interest and time to take on all the work involved with something like a restaurant management app? I certainly am not interested enough to become a music producer, nor do I have enough taste to know if something is good. There's an entire process to getting music produced that I'm ignorant of. People can generate toy apps or websites with AI all they want ... back in the dot com days people could create HTML sites from MS Word (it was disgusting output). They have no interest in maintaining, patching, troubleshooting, and scaling any of these toy apps. Sure they could get AI to do that too - can they check that AI is doing it correctly? what about when it fails?

I think the thing that humans are going to find is AI has no taste. Its the statistical median/average of solutions. AI slop is going to become prevalent and people are probably not going to like it after the hype fades. Part of the human experience is connecting with other humans, even if its following a band, or artist, etc. Things created by AI don't have that human experience element.

This is kinda the reason why the Meta stock might be pumping and Muse might leap ahead other AI solutions as far as market share goes. Quoted from Prof G Markets podcast: "meta has been molesting your privacy for 10 years".

It stands to reason their daily active users just don't care, they are already sharing so much on Meta's platforms it won't matter to them.

You used the plural "passwords", what makes you think there are multiple?

The people I have in mind sometimes get confused with basic iPhone functionality like Maps and CarPlay. I would think 1password is the solution but honestly a physical notebook is probably more their speed.

> Initial allocations will open within the near-term future. For the founding investors (as we call the first clients), we also offer a portfolio review to align your portfolio with your long-term goals, a direct line to founders, and other things.

My first, probably cynical, thought was isn't this how Bernie Madoff started with his ponzi scheme?

Are you a registered broker/trader?

My view is if you joined two boards together: congrats, you're now a woodworker!

Gating things by the level or complexity of what is accomplished isn't super helpful. I saw a lot of that with things like people that wrote HTML weren't "real coders".

Glassblowing and watch making require specialized equipment I suppose so if you can get your hands on the gear and try it out, I feel like you can call yourself that. Maybe throw a "hobbyist" tag on it if you feel inclined.

In a recent project the countertop contractor digitally measured the walls, even ones that look square weren't, not a 90 degree corner to be found! You should build cabinets as squared boxes and level them when installing. The trim work that surrounds it will hide gaps, etc.

Generally if there is space because of odd angled walls there really isn't any advantage to trying to use it. You're talking square inches of drawer/cabinet space, it really doesn't matter as far as usable space is concerned. Its a huge hassle to try and build cabinets that are not square - things like how do you screw/nail parts and not have the screw/nail blow out a finished side? It can be done, but should it?

The basis of these apps is pretty simple: you have to adjust your calorie target based on changes, you have to re-calculate as you go.

What I've found is that tracking activity via calories burned is horribly unproductive as there are large variations on how many calories were "burned" depending on the app, device and activity. Are there any scientific studies on how to calculate calorie burn for any activities? Anything in a controlled environment to understand something simple like adult walking 1 flat mile at 3mph. It seems like this would be really hard to nail down compared with say average calories in an apple. Anecdata: as soon as I stopped tracking activity, the scale started moving.

This is why a cool tech solution (procedural generation of "levels") by itself isn't good enough. The core gameplay loop is fundamentally the same on every planet. The graphics and descriptions may change but once you've played it for a bit, it gets boring.

I think video games are art, so take my opinion in context of if this is right up your alley and you really love it, then keep on keepin on!

> I chose this career mostly due to monetary reasons

I saw similar cases during the dot com boom and then bust. My opinion is that people that don't have an intrinsic interest in their work won't last a career length in it. Do you think some of the burnout is that you aren't really pulled into the work by interest and its just a slog/grind?

> I dread just getting the next job and continuing the corporate grind

Find something that interests you. I don't mean find your "passion" because if your passion is watching snails climb on logs its probably not going to pay well. Given what you read online about the job market, if you start looking now you might find something in 6 months so if you wait 6 months then expect to be out of work for a year.

I think the advice here is the reverse of someone trying to break into tech: find an industry that interests you, get a tech/software job there and then learn that industry and break out of the tech role into more industry specific roles at that place.

How often are people that are paid by their content attracting eyeballs correct? Isn't this a universal thing that people in these roles are constantly stating all sorts of things that never happen. This happens in sports media, politics, tech reporting, stock market predictions, etc.

Shouldn't society have a clever name for people playing these roles by now? Something catchy, insulting and based on truth might help call this out easier. I would throw influencers in there too, they are writing/video-loggin/podcasting for the same money outcome.

Most refrigerators in the US have automatic ice cube making and water dispensing. At least ones in homes, rental properties tend to skimp on this unless they are labelled "luxury". Its connected to the water supply of the house, typically with a smaller diameter plastic hose.

There's a carbon filter inside the fridge, they cost about $50 to replace. For any drinking water I usually use the fridge.

Funny thought - what if we had filters on our computers, digital filters, that needed cleaning. Oh we kind of do! Its cookies and tracing pixels and digital footprints. You should clean those out too.

I don't necessarily mean that managing up is negative in all cases. Its negative when that is the person's main focus - to manage up for that next promotion, make their mgmt believe everything they do is great, nothing is their fault. Its a very selfish point of view and where internal toxic politics breeds because in my eyes that person is putting themselves ahead of all others, the org, deliverables, the people that report to them, etc.

I see upper mgmt the same as middle mgmt. What is your distinction between the two? Budget control? They are both in the middle of the organization and are sort of generic jobs in a way.

If you've played video games you're familiar with the dopamine hit you get when defeating a big boss, solving some hard puzzle or finding rare loot. In some ways, solving problems with software is the same way. Its the same feeling and using AI in the last 6+ months has accelerated the pace at which you can get those dopamine hits.

That feeling is what's addictive. To use the video game analogy, if you could skip the grindy elements of repeating a boss fight over and over and just get more chances at the rare loot you probably would. Some call this a cheese, the community finds a cheesy way to defeat the boss easily so you do that and its a 5 min fight vs. 30. That's what AI is helping with: the grindy elements of coding.

I think you can still reach burnout (both in games and software) even if the grindy parts are getting automated. You can certainly ignore AI and hand code but statistically speaking you will probably be "left behind" from your peers.

Does your employer incentivize contributions individually and can you advance with this pace of work? If there are financial incentives it might make sense to put in extra effort. If your employer is in more of "its a marathon, not a sprint" mode and your contributions are to the greater good then put down the work at the end of the day and find something else to do. Set aside AI and ask yourself if its worth it putting in 2 extra hours per day.

I've seen a fair share of personalities in middle/upper management. My hypothesis is that in large organizations, people that operate at that level often exhibit more survival skills that are ruthless than moral. A common characteristic I've seen is they manage "up" well and are often not good managers themselves. So if they control the narrative with their management, even when they screw up everything, its articulated as something else and not their fault, they may even believe that to be true.

I don't think it matters what industry it is, you get an organization large enough and some humans start exhibiting these behaviors, they often rise up in leadership ranks.

Have you ever read the Ribbonfarm series about organizational/management theory tied to The Office?[0] Its worth a read or a refresh. It might even be cathartic reading for your partner after an event like this.

[0] https://ribbonfarm.com/series/the-gervais-principle/

If its a fixed cost on a balance sheet you might as well just use github (substitute whatever SaaS you're going to have AI clone), thats what that is without having responsibility for it.

The reason why small and large companies use github (or any other SaaS) is simple: building and maintaining that service is not something that will help that company move forward. Spending the amount of time to build it, integrate everything, maintain all those integrations is time they could have spent building whatever software their company actually sells.

With the advent of AI, people are probably thinking its easy to clone services like this and many others. Sure a 1.0 might be easy to stand up but you've got to now patch it, maintain it, extend it, integrate more tools into it, and keep it running better than github. People may joke/sneer at uptime metrics but when internal tools at a software company are down or worse, buggy and causing issues with delivery, its more painful than checking a status page to see when its back.