I will never work in an office again but I suspect that the good/hard workers, are slightly more productive with work from home and are happier if they want to work remote.
The slackers though are slacking much more with WFH. At least in the office they have to pretend to be productive and that ultimately results in additional productivity.
There has to be scaling laws at work here. I work for a very small company and it is quite obvious who is slacking off remote. In a large company, it is probably much easier for the slackers to hide their lack of productivity.
Tolerance for ideas one disagrees with has a very short history in space and time. Intolerance in this area seems to be the long run equilibrium and we are simply returning from a far from equilibrium state that could only last so long.
I consume many audiobooks and I usually love an audiobook narrator to the point they are a value add itself or I hate the way they speak and I literally can't read the book. The former is very rare though and the later much more common.
The ability to change voices to one that suites a person's taste is hardly a race to the bottom. It is a HUGE value add.
I am sure lamplighters were not happy about the light bulb either.
c'est la vie.
Breaking the audible monopoly sounds like a nice side effect too.
Protein powder is 90% marketing that is a distortion of reality and research for marketing purposes. None of this matters unless you are only getting your protein from one source.
If you are eating north of .5-7 grams per lb of bodyweight throughout the day you are not going to be short of amino acids when needed even if lifting really hard.
I like a protein shake because it taste good and different but there is absolutely nothing special about any of this. Protein powder has the absolute most bullshit around the product of anything I can even think of.
I listened to the Cursor team on Lex Fridman yesterday. The biggest thing I took away is they have some wild ideas with having agents running in the background that are following what you are creating, trying to find bugs.
I understand what you mean but surely those guys were thinking about this awhile ago now. That part seems obvious listening to them. They are thinking way beyond that.
If you are using multiple programming languages though you really can't say you are a non-programmer.
I just got up and running with Julia in like two weeks when I didn't even know what Julia was 3 weeks ago.
On the other hand, I have the digital audio workstation Reaper installed. It is one thing for LLMs to write crud apps and data science scripts but to write a digital audio workstation(something I have 25 years of experience as a user), as a non-software engineer I wouldn't even know how to begin. Even if I could compile the code to play an audio file with a volume knob, the gulf is so huge. I wouldn't be able to add more than a few features before it would become totally unmanageable since I don't know what I am doing.
Much of what makes LLMs so impressive is we have such low expectations of modern software. They have broken the market for demo CRUD apps. Beyond that though I wouldn't trust anything cursor and I make.
Maybe because my salary doesn't depend on any of this that I think this whole framing is science fiction.
A calculator needs direction on what to calculate because the machine doesn't have agency.
We are going to a higher level of abstraction and at that higher level you probably need a different skill set than before. Humans aren't going to get cut out of the loop but you always have to level up your skills.
I think there is just a generation of tech workers that got lazy and thought they were immune to change some how. I didn't even know anyone that had been on the internet when I graduated high school. Someone older and wiser though told me I would have to constantly reinvent myself, always learn new skills and will have several different careers. They were so spot on. Guess what? Nothing has changed.
I suspect many people are simply not that intellectually curious about the world.
It a super power for the intellectually curious while the highly specialized that thought they were done learning can only see the threat to their intellectual moat. They aren't wrong.
I feel like I level up on a weekly basis practically.
It wouldn't be shocking to me that in 30 years, your daughter would be tasked with writing a whole book and not just an essay. Part of the learning process is learning to leverage technology. Something I think we do a really bad job at teaching kids.
Of course, leveraging technology to do the exact same thing you would do without the technology is a terrible lesson on many levels.
Seems obvious to me too as someone who sucks at dancing but loves fitness.
Like saying the heart worked harder with people on a treadmill at 4 miles per hour than 3 miles per hour.
I think there is also this bogus implication then that dancing would help you write a better novel or painting a picture than just walking on a treadmill.
It doesn't really work that way. Over time, it really does just devalue the art form in a sense because now anyone can make a recording.
Electronic music is really the best example. In 1995 it took thousands of dollars to have a fully working studio to even produce any track. By 2005, anyone could do this in their bedroom for basically nothing. In 1995 the cost acted as a filter so only those with talent would bother. Once anyone could do it, all electronic music recordings were devalued by the infinite supply.
I thought there would be 1000 Richard James once this happened. Maybe there even are but I have never heard them because there is so much shit to sift through I really don't even listen to electronic music anymore. I don't think there are though. 900 them probably are doing something else because there is no money left in the art form, 90 are making some other style of music with better financial prospects and the 10 that are, I will never hear of or be able to find.
Temporal graph visualization is quite lacking. It probably depends what one time slice of your network looks like.
If you have 10 to 20 nodes without a ton of edges you could use a fixed circular layout for the nodes on a timeline that just the edges change over time.
More than this and you start getting into hairball territory even without the changes over time. A hairball changing over time is even more useless than a hairball on its own.
The standard force directed layout is really quite useless other than seeing the global structure of the graph. The uselessness is more obvious when you try to change it over time. I suspect the layout is so standard because the visualization looks so cool.
Most data visualization though has this same problem. There is almost this property that the cooler and more beautiful the visualization is, the more useless it is as far as containing any insight about the data itself.
Why do I even read this stupid fucking website