If you look at the lyrics it is a bit straightforward for the 21st century, I think the best approach now is to compress it to only 4 words, "Hi, What's Your Name?".
Even that can be a bit much in the wrong situation, so it can be good to seek out the opposite type of situation :)
You might keep that on your mind but from there let things try to imply the rest of the lyrics, especially the part that goes "Can I Be Your Friend?"
I might agree with you as a knee jerk, but I believe "the medium is the message"[1] and I don't think there's anything particularly meaningful or evocative about shattered glass as opposed to any other planar medium.
There is no meaning in converting a conventionally destructive, random, chaotic act into a directed, aesthetic, meaningful one?
The fact he has a portrait of Kamala Harris called “glass ceiling breaker” and one of the victims of the Beirut explosion called #weareunbreakable suggests that you don’t need to dig particularly deep to find meaningful subtext in the choice of material and technique.
This is what I was driving at. I should have been more specific to say not particularly meaningful or evocative to me. From the previews I've seen it's all based around shattering and breaking. Where I will give credit, there's one: "Transformation" where natural light is reflected at the shattered glass to portray a face which I find to be fascinating. The rest feel kitschy, it's not quite to my tastes.
> "What if our AI bullishness continues to be right...and what if that’s
actually bearish" - what if pee pee was poo poo
Despite the vulgarity, it is exceptionally illuminating to how much some of these slop pieces are just a mere pretension of rhetoric. I see this pretty consistently with a lot of the material I come across on the job that's gone through the LLM meat-grinder.
Also, the comment made me giggle like a little kid.
What's pretend-rhetoric about it? They're positing agents will prove to be very capable, but that this would ultimately be a bad thing by automating away too much of the economy. You can argue whether that's plausible or not, but it isn't an incoherent or vapid argument.
I suggest you read the annotation if that question isn't just rhetorical. I'm not familiar with Ed, but he has a pretty good take down in here if you can get past his somewhat juvenile writing style.
It is a problem when your doomsday timeline for obsolescence is behind the minute you publish.
The memo itself was fantasy doomer porn on day 1.
If you're okay with the work being done poorly and without review, then sure. Otherwise, it'll take the same amount of time and be done worse. I would not trust solely 1 person to review 5 people's work let alone 100.
You’re arguing semantics. OP is hypothesising a future where the quality of work is comparable to that of a human. If you don’t believe that that’s on the cards, just say it, but you’re intentionally misrepresenting the hypothetical.
It's definitely odd that someone who allegedly wrote a complete compiler in Python would describe something that is obviously Rust syntax as Python-like.
I totally agree. "Python-like" was a bad choice of words on my part. I meant it more in terms of learning curve and explicitness, not the surface syntax. Structurally its more like C/Rust and I should have said that from the start
Yes, I used AI during development. I treated it as an assistant for explanations, brainstorming, and occasional small code snippets. The language design, compiler architecture, semantics, and the majority of the implementation were written and decided by me
# Parameter in Stack-Slots laden (für MVP: nur Register-Args)
# Semantic Analyzer markiert Params mit is_param=True
# Wir müssen jetzt die first 6 Args aus Registern laden
# TODO: Implementiere Parameter-Handling
# for now: Params bleiben in Registern (keine lokalen Vars mit gleichem Namen)
Also I love that I can understand all of this comment without actually understanding German.
Very few companies producing physical goods make the kind of money that companies producing meta-physical goods do. They produce more money at a fraction of the cost. Value is always an issue of culture and the west in particular values money above all, so all inefficient labor relative to the task of making money is devalued. It's easy enough to point the finger and say "wall st bad" but we enshrined it collectively as a culture.
This is what I keep coming back to when I am building a little tui manager for my coding assistants + terminal + git worktree manager.
I keep telling myself that if everyone just used tmux or a good emulator they could manage the tabs and layouts, but then I tell myself I just want this to be a tiling window manager as an distraction free OS for development, give me nothing but a terminal and an assistant.
Thanks for the write up OP, I've been going back and forth on whether or not I want to build something just for myself or spend time doing it for potentially other use cases. I keep coming back to that I need to dog food the shit out of this before I show it to anyone.
reply