Interesting! I've been thinking about how you'd best teach sentence patterns for a long time, happy someone is making progress on it.
I'm a bit too beginner to effectively use the app, sadly, but it's quite an interesting flow.
As an aside, a while ago, I sort of prototyped the reverse: Learn vocab to understand a natural language sentence, translate the sentence (https://infi.koljasam.com)
Instead of having that one god-author who has to keep maintaining everything, I think a better option may be to have the whole comprehensively community-maintained. Which opens up the question: How do you open source structured data and maintenance?
Can you elaborate what right now is in the app that goes beyond Zoom? Always some effort to get started with a new communication app, and even more so to convince others to do so.
From the landing page, this seems very much...zoom.
Variations of this are a common talking point in the self-help world, and while it's a powerful antidote against "I'm sure some day this giant thing will suddenly be easy and I'll just do it", it's not a silver bullet. Here are some counter-considerations:
- Doing anything usually involves prep work. Want to take a step? First put on your shoes (literally or figuratively, depending). If your attempted habit is 70% prep, your brain will somewhat rightfully conclude "this is stupid" fairly quickly.
- "Just do X every day for [long time period]" has an inherent falsification problem: You aren't "allowed" to argue against it until you tried it. Stopped after 2 years because you saw no change (and 5 was recommended)? You are still not allowed to argue against the strategy!
- You can actually make steps so small that they're useless. I once set out to have (at least) one github commit online per day (going for that green tile!). This led to my brain finding hacks like rephrasing one sentence of an old blog post. Doing that for 20 days is way less effective than one single coding session, at 20 times the emotional cost.
- Doing something daily for a long time is extremely hard to achieve, especially if it's not the main thing you're doing. It's rare in the wild. You will find piano virtuosos who play piano daily, but not piano virtuosos who also go to the gym daily.
Is anyone else detecting a phase shift in LLM criticism?
Of course you could always find opinion pieces, blogs and nerdy forum comments that disliked AI; but it appears to me that hate for AI gen content is now hitting mainstream contexts, normie contexts. Feels like my grandma may soon have an opinion on this.
No idea what the implications are or even if this is actually something that's happening, but I think it's fascinating
If you have two modes of spending your time, one being work that you only do because you are paid for it, and the other being feeding into an addiction, the conversations you should be having are not about where to use AI.
I heard a very similar sentiment expressed as "everything is not good enough to be useful until it suddenly is".
I find it a powerful mental model precisely because it is not a statement of success rate or survival rate: Yes, a lot of ideas never break any kind of viability threshold, sure, but every idea that did also started out as laughable, toy-like, and generally shit (not just li-ion batteries, also the wheel, guns, the internet and mobile computers).
It is essentially saying 'current lack of viability is a bad indicator of future death' (at least not any more than the high mortality of new tech in general), I guess.
I was there earlier last year, and it was none too impressive.
Pretty shoddy brick walls (just straight blocks), crumbling at many places, constructed possibly along ancient foundations or maybe not, that you sort of walk through. Interesting things here and there. Couple of other tourists.
Walking through Saddam's palace next to it was much more fascinating; extreme grandeur morphed into a typical lost place with graffiti and empty bottles. The nearby town Al7illa certainly offered more to actually experience, like a mini theme park with the main attraction being (artificial) rain.
Anyways I genuinely wish the committed people all the best in the restoration, but I feel like the article is a tad over-enthusiastic and easily convinced.
If I hire you to make software for me, I don't really want software; I want a problem to go away, a money stream built, a client to be happy. Of course, that probably requires you to build software, unless you invent a magic wand. But if you had the magic wand, I'd choose it every single time over software.
Not so with food, furniture or a fancy hotels, where I actually want the thing.
Note that this says "best programmers" not "people best at having business impact by making software".
I wonder about this often: If you want to have impact/solve problems/make money, not just optimizing killing your JIRA tickets, should you invest a given hour into understanding the lowest code layer of framework X, or talk to people in the business domain? Read documentation or a book on accessibility in embedded systems? Pick up yet another tech stack or simply get faster at the one you have that is "good enough"?
Not easy to answer, but worth keeping in mind that there is more to programming than just programming.
Some days you will quickly burn through six tasks on your list because they turn out to domino or all be easy or something else. Sometimes, a single item will take three days even with honest effort and deep work.
If "tasks done" is your metrics, you will get just as burned here.
As with all long-term habit building, I think the key here is identity forming. Be convinced that you are a person that (for example) cares about exploring their field with side projects and then ask yourself: "What would this person do?"
If you believe yourself, you will then both fight through your tasklist or do X hours of honest works and find that the actual system does not even matter that much.
yeah if it's no effort, please share, otherwise I reckon I'll rebuild it myself some time soon :)