Agreed - maybe not lots - but I got myself a HIS8055U three years ago specifically because it had knobs. No regrets there. I wish it had one larger burner, but completely night and day with traditional electric.
I think (related to the threads below) properly running evals in the state of the art models is likely outside the budget for most individuals. It's undoubtedly the right thing.
It would be very useful for companies to isolate interesting programming challenges in their past and publish evals on them (without revealing the actual codebase). In theory companies adopting these models should already be doing this to evaluate cost/benefit for each model, so it would be a matter of publishing them on a regular basis.
I do love the appeal to bread making. It's a wonderful example. If people haven't made french bread by hand, it's a humbling exercise.
Recipes of course have evolved too. Old roman recipes were merely a list of ingredients. Water, flour, salt, yeast.
Written steps came after, then photos, videos, gradually replacing hands on training / kneading.
There are now recipes as code running sour dough assembly lines. Certainly capturing much more detail in technique than even a well made video. But I bet there is still human QA at the end judging "is this bread what folks expect?"
I suspect that in order of complexity you'll get "can I attempt to follow each step", "can I follow the intention of each step and understand if I've failed to meet it" (mitigated by using more specific and detailed steps) "can I follow the intention of the recipe itself - can I add or modify steps that are missing to give the ideal form of sour dough" (maybe you show a machine what good bread looks like, moisture content, crunch?) Those mostly overlap with the 3 you've called out. But I'd add "why would anyone make bread?" Why the heck are we still mixing flour and water together. Why does this recipe exist? Great crusty sourdough requires them all.
I do think there's a chance open weight models have a bit of a moment with the costs of frontier models growing on business balance sheets. It's unfortunate from my "privacy loving" PoV that it's mostly Chinese models filling the gap. ( the top models on openrouter for instance ).
I have used Mistral models out of pure ideology for web agents and the like which aren't doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Antirez’s Deepseek 4 Flash implementation that can run on MacBooks also was a revelation. It runs decently on M5 Max 128GB and it’s pointing out other bottlenecks like prefill speed which will improve.
I tend to agree - making folks intending to interact with minors comply makes more sense.
That said, outside of the merits of this approach, I am dubious of any actual implementation given 2 points.
1) Protecting the youths will always be a leaky bucket. With disadvantaged youths possibly more at risk. Those exposed to non-compliant parents ("cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content) or lacking strong parental involvement, likely won't benefit a great deal from any implementation.
2) Anti privacy social networks stand to gain the most from targeting ads utilizing signals from most child safety acts. They also might be able to reduce some costs from moderation if they can make it someone else's problem. I'd argue the net social impact from these social networks is likely both more normalized and strongly negative for our youths than any smut.
On the balance I'd say we are better off investing our energy in other places.
> "cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content
Or simply parents who won’t agree with the government on what is suitable for their children.
We already have parental control on all mainstream operating systems, why cannot this simply be the responsibility of the parent as are so many other things regarding what children do, watch, eat etc?
We don't have parental control on any mainstream operating system that actually works. In fact, California just removed the law that said operating systems have to have working parental control.
Because what parents have access to now is extremely ineffective unless they prevent their kids from going outside or going to school. Right now the onus is entirely on parents too keep their kids off the Internet equivalent of smoking cigarettes, and it’s a losing battle. What we’re looking for is for the liability to shift off the parent and onto the people intentionally communicating with children. Frankly the proposal above was very reasonable. If you don’t want to intentionally communicate with kids then do nothing and you have no liability.
I want to intentionally communicate with kids, because kids have always been valued members of the online communities I frequent. Right now, it is easy for social media giants to exploit children, easy for child predators to get access to abuse children, and increasingly-difficult to maintain online spaces in which children are allowed to safely exist. That is surely not what we are intending to accomplish, here.
If you walk through a forest there are billions of little things from creatures to bits of dna just looking to pass on their particular brand of biologic layout to another generation. They would love to involve you.
on a world swirling through the chaos of hard and ephemeral matter one big rock away from a new trajectory.
No, we in no way created the complexity. We have some baby complexities we've created sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. We have complexities we've created to understand the world. Some to try and improve how we live. Some to mimic how we see existing systems or control others. It's all just a drop in the bucket.
I happen to subscribe to the general belief that we should aim to make life suck less for others in the future. I think we do that by learning more, not trying to back step into ignorance and forget how we got here. That is a dead end. Our present complexity of life is just the farthest we've got so far. Not very far at all.
> I happen to subscribe to the general belief that we should aim to make life suck less for others in the future.
In pursuit of this noble goal, one can do more harm than good, if not careful. Take for instance a wealthy parent that gifts their child with $5,000,000 so they never have to work, hoping their child's life will be easier than their own. What is the likely result of this gift? A child that never learns the value of money, and goes broke all too soon with no skills to survive.
I know magic has a nice Arthur C. Clarke ring to it, but I think arguing about magic obscures the actual argument.
It's about layers of abstraction, the need to understand them, modify them, know what is leaking etc.
I think people sometimes substitute magic when they mean "I suddenly need to learn a lower layer I assumed was much less complex ". I don't think anyone is calling the linux kernal magic. Everyone assumes it's complex.
Another use of "magic" is when you find yourself debugging a lower layer because the abstraction breaks in some way. If it's highly abstracted and the inner loop gives you few starting points ( while (???) pickupWorkFromAnyWhere() )). It can feel kafkaesque.
I sleep just fine not knowing how much software I use exactly works. It's the layers closest to application code that I wish were more friendly to the casual debugger.
To me, it's much less of an issue when it works, obviously, but far more of a headache when I need to research the "magic" in order to make something work which would be fairly trivially implemented with fewer layers of abstraction.
I think the context matters here - for SEO heavy marketing pages I still see google only executing a full browser based crawl for a subset of pages. So SSR matters for the remainder.
You have many great replies about specific methods - but I found the most important tip wasn't where I was looking. Tools, software, books, methods all can come later. The most important part for me was creating the time for cleanup and organization. Physically and mentally.
Jumping from thing to thing without time set aside for "stop, reflect, adjust" makes it very challenging to make
changes. I realized that you don't become organized if you don't spend time on it. Picking up physical messes. Thinking about what was important in your day vs what you got done. How the week went. Writing it down.
I found it was only after I started consistently putting time aside to catchup, think and adjust that I started being able to consider if any particular methods would be helpful. Parts of GTD have helped me (capture first) - but the aha moment really
came before that.
If you want to be organized, put time into
reflecting and adjusting (eg. organizing) the critical parts of your life. Once a day, every day. Maybe more than once a day. Then use one of those to reflect on the week. Not reading about it or endlessly sorting the books on your shelf, but focusing intently on stuff you'll remember 20 years from now.
