Awesome! I've replaced my desktop monitor with e-ink, and use an e-ink tablet for reading and browsing. My laptop is the final LED screen in my life. I don't know if I have the skills/time to DIY this but it looks promising. Great work!
You only need a small 3d printer for that project, 256 mm square bed, as all the big pieces are sliced in two. And it is not too difficult to assemble the piece from Framework 13. It is all "screw in place".
I don't know about that. The frontier models have all sorts of strange regressions and quirks. They're more "intelligent" but, like hyper-intelligent humans who speak up without any skin in the game, I've found that they have a strong pull to add complexity to anything they touch. Truth is, I don't need frontier-level intelligence to write a CRUD app or debug my config file. The vast majority of software work is basic pattern matching.
Perhaps because they are dumber, they produce better results? IMO an excellent well-tuned harness combined with a "frontier minus x" model produces the highest quality result. DS4.1 and Qwen3.8, far from being a compromise, legit give me better results. For my personal definition of "better".
It's the difference between the value of "code" vs "software". Lots of people use those phrases interchangeably but its becoming painfully apparent that doesn't work anymore. Software requires more effort to actually make something IRL. Code can just be generated and sit in a repo, doing nothing, interacting with nothing.
Github has reported a 14x increase in code. Where did that 14x increase go? Certainly not to providing economic value - as you explained, we've basically flatlined there. It doesn't show up in revenue or profit margins. It doesn't show up in the app store metrics. It doesn't show up in speed or quality or security. It doesn't lead to new innovations or breakthroughs in software problems. All AI coding has done is to create more code.
The disconnect between 14xing code and barely 1.0xing software value is stark. It's not really an indicment on AI coding though. I think it reveals something interesting about the software industry. Specifically, that it was never about the code at all. It's about making that code do tricks in the real world - that's what constitutes almost the entirety of the value proposition. Code is cheap and getting cheaper. Software remains hard and is getting harder.
Can we afford to look past it? If/when claudeslop starts infecting every new model to such an extent, that model will produce its own slop, infecting new models... At what point do we lose all reliable methods for establishing "truth"? This is epistemic collapse waiting to happen. I honestly thought it would take longer... holding out for a coherent shared reality in 2030 seems optimistic.
They used initial manufacturing emissions + electricity emissions. But they forgot to incorporate tire wear. Any car will need at least one or two sets of new tires in its lifetime - and those are an incredibly energy intensive recurring cost.
Not to mention the asphalt roads we drive them on! Though that cost is shared by all drivers, it has to be accounted for somewhere.
Even if we have a 100% electric vehicle fleet, we'd still need oil to make roads and tires. Plus the 88g from the study. Since EVs are being sold as a way to "solve climate change", this is a big problem. Most people assume a transition to EVs would mean stopping oil. They are wrong.
I wonder if the definition of "code quality" needs to be updated? Consider DRY: There's a lot of cases where, if I was writing by hand, I'd prefer a succinct abstraction that's easier to type and reduces repetition - all good things right? Most developers, myself included, would gladly accept the complexity and runtime cost of a good abstraction if it saved them thousands of lines of boilerplate.
What about when repetitive typing is no longer a constraint? Do we need to pay for those abstractions? An LLM can scour the codebase and repeat patterns without getting tired. A simple-but-repetitive codebase might be ideal for an LLM.
This is one place I see AI coding changing the definition of code quality itself. I'm sure there are more...
I never use AI for writing but do so regularly for code. They are quite different to me.
My reason: code can be checked objectively. I can run it and confirm it works. I don't get attached to it. I don't feel pride in it (even when I write it by hand). Code just is. It's lifeless, inert, and entirely replaceable.
How do I do the equivalent for prose? How can I tell if my words "work"? Do they clearly convey my ideas to the intended audience? There's an element of subjectivity here forces me to identify personally with the prose.
Code has no such personality. I don't tie my identity or ego to code the same way I would an essay.
> My reason: code can be checked objectively. I can run it and confirm it works.
Running the code only confirms that it works with the precise input, in the precise environment, under the precise circumstances you run it under. It doesn’t ensure that the code is correct. Thinking through the code, on the other hand, lets you consider all possible cases. It’s the difference between experiment and (mathematical) proof.
For an objective correctness proof, using a formal language is indispensable.
Even thinking through the code is not complete because our brains make mistakes. They also make assumptions, thousands of them, that you don’t know about. It’s tricky, because every thought you have has an entire sea of preconceived notions and knowledge behind it, which you can’t identify. In that way, it’s similar to an LLM.
In practice, for code, testing code is the way to go. Formal proofs work, too, but the barrier to entry is high and it’s overkill for most business applications. LLMs can be very good at writing tests, if you read the test thoroughly and analyze them.
> I don't feel pride in it (even when I write it by hand).
Hard for me to imagine. You feel no pride in using a tool to accomplish a goal?
> Code has no such personality. I don't tie my identity or ego to code the same way I would an essay
Code certainly does have a personality. When working with teams for a while you can absolutely get a sense for which person wrote what code in a codebase, just by subtle little tells.
You may not tie your identity or ego to it, bully for you, but for me I take a lot of pride in writing clear and maintainable code that contributes to big projects in meaningful ways.
Maybe the problem with software is there's too many people who treat writing code as a mere means to an end, instead of a very important part of the process.
Well, there's some nuance. I'm not really proud of my code. I'm proud of the software that gets built with it.
Code is just sitting in a git repo somewhere, not necessarily running. That's a big distinction for me. Consider that code volume has increased 14x on github this year, but we see nowhere near that increase in the actual usable software. Code is cheap and getting cheaper. Running software ain't.
Another way to put it: I'm only interested in code so far as the value it provides. That value, not the code itself, is the source of pride. If I can provide similar value without any code at all, I'd gladly do so.
But code is the mean to get an idea across to someone. It’s the difference between “I think this can work” and “I’ve worked on this and it does work”. I’m part of the OpenBSD mailing list and it quite nice someone sharing a diff for an idea or experiment. It may not get merged, but it’s better than realm of deliberations.
I understand the distinction you're drawing, but in my experience, it gets a lot blurrier as a project evolves. Caveat that I use LLMs all day and have for quite some time, so I'm coming from a positive perspective.
The danger for me in LLM code is the same as in writing, it's just that I'm not typically writing at the same scale as when I'm building something. The final piece when I'm writing is usually a message or a 1,000 word article at most. So I'm naturally going to analyze it quite intensely, because I can afford to. And I don't really use LLMs for this at all. I use them for things around writing (research, interrogating ideas, situationally specific stuff, mapping, visuals, publishing, etc.) And the code equivalent to an essay or message would probably be something like a single script, or the sort of thing I'd write as example code when I'm teaching. In those settings, again, LLMs can be helpful, but I'm still going to be really opinionated at a highly detailed resolution.
But a codebase is more comparable to a novel than an essay. Or more directly, the writing in a codebase is usually the documentation, which grows commensurately with the codebase. And the real LLM risk here is the drift that can happen over the course of many epics or "chapters" as the LLM writes "code that works but is imprecise and probably shouldn't work this way" or introduces weird new terminology that neither of us can precisely define. Worse, this usually becomes obvious down the line, and I have to parse through the verbose constructed world the agent has created to trace the issue back. That's a big cognitive tax, because I'm holding these weird parallel worlds of "How did the LLM's alien brain get here within the bounds of the contracts" and "What do I really want this to look like".
So I think it's fundamentally the same phenomenon, and we're all developing our skills around working with it in real time.
Read between the lines. He's saying "Mess with us, we'll nuke you." They mean it. Putin is desperate enough to do it. Anyone responding to this with Euro-bravado is an idiot. Some of y'all didn't grow up during the cold war and your blind spot is showing. No one wins in a nuclear war.
Deterrence is exactly what we should be doing. Many responses here were some variation of "he'd never try" or "let him try, we'd win". That's not deterrence - that's ignorance and provocation, respectively.
They never mean it, it's a threatening tactics. Their children live in western countries and their money is there. They wouldn't allow nuking western countries just like that. ESPECIALLY if they know they attacked first. Even their own doctrine doesn't allow using nukes for anything except the direct external threat to their statehood.
reply