I think, of course, skepticism around this "LLM discovers X" thing is warranted, and there have been plenty of more recent examples around questionable LLM "discoveries". Just stating this because the LK99 thing I believe was notable as a (supposed) room-temp _super_conductor while this is about a _semi_conductor.
Holy heck. Me too, I got all the way to here getting increasingly confused by the discussion (didn't help that the top comment was from a magnets PhD, which you'd expect in discussion of superconductors, not of semiconductors).
Okay, so this is just semiconductors, which are the boring kind of conductors - still more interesting than regular conductors, but less interesting than train conductors.
This is a rare instance where I think Wikipedia is plain wrong. Maybe the process to have multiple pages renamed is onerous? The thing in the original post I've usually heard to be called spinners, while this input element, which I'm not sure I've ever even seen, doesn't seem to have its name justified in any way on the Wikipedia page either. I can't really tell why it'd desperately need a concise name either, it's basically a numeric input with extra controls on it? anyhow, spinners spin and those spin so they're spinners, I won't hear otherwise.
I don't know, I think you have a point that aesthetic preferences are subjective and shifting. But there is also all-caps monospaced text with emdashes in it on the site; just an example of something I think would not turn into a fashion at any point because it just looks silly (subjectively, to me at least). Thus I don't think the antipathy of people towards these llm-generated landing pages is entirely based on associating it with other LLM sites, there is at least an element of it clearly not being through as much human review and interaction as a hand-crafted landing page necessarily would be.
I don't own a car, and I found the article mildly interesting, but I can't get over the sentence
> Our last three cars, the eldest of which was from the 2017 model year [...].
Is it common to buy three cars in let's say 10 years? That seems like a large amount of spend (afaik cars depreciate in value rather quick?) and -- barring accidents -- a really short time to have to replace something as sturdy as a car; If I get less than three years out of a phone it feels like a waste and it feels like the main barrier for phone longevity (besides batteries, which are replaceable) is security updates.
IDK, since I don't see any comments on it, it must not be that strange, it just struck me as odd.
I happen to listen to ATP, a tech podcast of which Casey is a co-host.
I believe his family owns 2 cars, but had to replace one of them recently when a pebble caused a freak accident, essentially totaling the engine in one of the cars. Hence 3 cars purchased in 10 years.
The average car in the US is about 13 years old. Just like with phones, some people upgrade every few years even though it's a poor financial decision. Many frugal or less wealthy people only buy used cars and drive them until they die.
Working in satellite simulation, where we end up with complex harnesses (cabling) and where I don't really know the nitty-gritty of how the sausage is made by the engineers creating them, I was really curious for a moment; but alas, it's an AI thing.
FWIW, my quick impression is that takes reasonable concepts and tries to formalize them into a framework; I can see potential benefits, I've certainly asked in a claude code session for it to have a look at pipeline so and so and figure out the issue, but I'm not really convinced by this at first glance either. Both setup-cost and token cost seem like downsides.
Nobody seems to have (yet) mentioned the most recent (rn) commit [1] dated 2099.
I can't really figure out where the date came from, at the source noted in the commit I find no '2099', I can't see it being a joke, if it's a bug it's not obvious to me..
I'm sure I won't be the only one curious, please enlighten me.
Classic. He forgot to add "make no mistakes" to the prompt. Based on the commits alone Im not sure anyone really reviewed the correctness of the git history.
When someone specifically mentions "built in ~4h with Claude Code" they probably didn't care that much about the outcome quality
I think that's not viable. To make that work you'd have to keep up with the kernel for years, probably more than a decade, to reach some kind of critical mass and become influential enough to be capable of separating from it and driving decisions that run counter to it. That's not even to mention the loss it would be to have these capable teams (rust proponents for the kernel and extremely experienced maintainers and contributors who want nothing to do with it) working in parallel at best and in partial opposition at worst, when they could work together.
This is much more of a manpower and money problem than it is a technical one. Of course it's possible to fork Linux and rewrite it in Rust. But who would spend all that time and energy doing that without the Linux foundations funds and expertise? You'd probably burn out within a few years before ever substantially converting the code base
There is a (to me very surprising) typo in the section 'Focus on what matters.' where the AI summary states "... 11 out off[sic] 100 products ..."
I don't think I've ever encountered a typo in any of the LLM output I've seen, seems like the exact sort of thing an LLM would be more or less perfect at.
Am I wrong to take this as an indication that this text is actually written by a human as a concise marketing example?
Another in the same vein is vim-fugitive by tpope [1].
I have never used magit, only a Neovim plugin claiming to resemble it, but I would assume fugitive is much the same (and quite wonderful from my experience).
Location: Germany (Bremen / Hamburg)
Remote: flexible (Europe/Berlin time ideally)
Willing to relocate: likely not, perhaps within Germany especially back to Berlin
Technologies: Rust, Go, C++, Linux, WASM, SBOM
CV: https://hensel.dev/about/cv
Email: see CV
I'm a software developer about to finish my MSc (CS) looking what interesting work might be out there.
