Yeah, because women tend to seek more clinical assistance than men do so of course the attempt % would be higher for them as well, because how are you even gonna know that number for men if they aren't even getting recorded.. the suicide numbers are the only actual real recordable evidence unfortunately.

Unfortunately a lot of attempts also end up in the ER, which is the main source of numbers here.

This is gonna smack real hard when Qwen 4 releases soon with the gated residual architecture

Should really just be like a leap motion device on the desk, glasses are so gimmicky and aren't gonna fly for people with prescriptions (a large set of people in-front of computers all day)

People with prescriptions can just get versions with prescriptions in them (this is a thing for "smart" glasses already).

Can, but as a new product it is going to limit their adoption rate by some pretty significant amount.

half of the other people in the office in the video are wearing prescription glasses

why would anyone ever pay for a pro version of this? I can just read the css of those examples and implement it myself, or just point an agent at it to replicate it.

read. https://github.com/humanlayer/advanced-context-engineering-f...

Did you even read further on? The section right after that addresses the step changes in current frontier models https://github.com/humanlayer/advanced-context-engineering-f...

it is absolutely wild to me that this keeps floating to top comment thread when the guy very clearly did not read even the first half

As I mentioned explicitly in the comment you're replying to: yes, I did read that section. Did you not bother to read my whole comment before telling me to read more?

> I feel like any perspective/experience on "what agents can/can't do" from before that period is... maybe less than relevant to the modern era

This part of your comment is confusing.

The article talks about agents past this period. Yet it seems like you’re saying this article isn’t relevant because it doesn’t?

OK, but having read that section you'll see how

> just writes off any improvement

Is not what that section contains?

There's a more nuanced point about capabilities improving in some ways but not others (ability to one-shot apps vs. maintenance of existing code over time).