An interesting thought experiment, but I'm not sure I follow the reasoning of these two statements, which is the crux of why open software fits this mold.
1. Reproducible, meaning executable, as well as modifiable, and
2. Reliable, meaning that the results are consistently trustworthy
Why does modifiable fit reproducible. Modifiable fits the open source theme, but not the science theme. Can someone set me straight on this if I am missing something?
Number 2 is something I've been thinking about more recently, and the definition of science from the post being "testable hypothesis and predictable".
Medicine is testable and predictable, but not reliable. To me reliability is the job of engineering. To take what is known in science and make it reliable.
I used to work at CSIRO (Australia's science and technology org) and I remember my boss telling me that researchers always think their work is ready to go from the lab into the real world, but it is our job as engineers to make that translation so that the work outside of the lab. That's what I think about when I think of reliable.
I was hoping to see something like this, though I didn't know what form it would take.
A few months ago I was at a demo night in SF and 4 people demo'd essentially the same tool for managing PRs. At the time my thought was "are we really going to be dealing with PRs in 2 years.
I don't know if Delta is the right solution, but Zed is at least questioning the current paradigm, which I think is important.
Part of the question may be how do you change the users expectations.
If you are building a product the user already knows, that might not be difficult.
We work in the sleep space, where everyone expects a hypnogram and a sleep score.
Even though these things don't actually tell you anything real. They are of little value to most people, but that is the expectation.
When making a call and using headset mic+earphones the audio mode/profile drops back to HFP instead of A2DP used for music. The quality difference is huge. By using the computer mic you can keep using A2DP with better quality for your voice capture and listening experience.
It's technically not a bandwidth issue, AFAIK, it is a "profile" issue. When listening to audio only you are using a different bluetooth profile than when you are using it for two way mic+speakers.
Try playing some music on your computer and then start a video call. Even before I jump into the meeting, as soon as I hit the Google meet site and it opens up the meeting "camera preview" page, the music quality goes straight into the toilet.
This also happens to my "puck" speaker+mic array that is connected via USB.
As I understand it the codec used in Bluetooth headsets is from 2003 and doesn't use the bit rate effectively compared to a newer codec. Sometimes a device will support a newer codec especially with the aptX branding, and even rarer will both devices support it!
They mean that the audio quality you hear on the AirPods is better if you only listen to audio compared to listening and using the microphone. I don’t know if that happens on Macs too, but it’s certainly true when using AirPods on Linux because you have to switch the profile when you want to use the microphone and then the audio is really compressed for playback.
This is mostly seems to be looking at the past to define the future, as if we are going to go back to a similar way of living and that the current "work" was a fever-dream which captured the entire population.
But I see the past as more of a trajectory than a closed-circle.
Prior to industrialization, most of us would have though of ourselves and our work as physicality. We have physical bodies which do the farming, the sewing, the waring, the metal working, etc. etc.
Yes, we used our minds and understood the idea of a creative class, but that would have been a very small minority of the population.
As industrialization took over the physicality of many jobs, we transferred to our thinking selves. Most work does not involve physical inputs. They are mental inputs.
If we spoke to a pre-industrialized person, would they even recognize that their mental inputs would be considered work or a job?
Therefore, with this mentality, is there something we are doing today which is part of our humanness, which we don't currently recognize the value of, but will become the next level of "work"?
Having worked in the mapping sector for a bit, it makes sense.
Google/Apple are not deciding what the lake is called. They are pulling data from the GNIS.
This way people in a region will see what their government decides is the correct version for their people.
Let's take this out of the heated debate.
In the most of the world and Iran (strangely we agree on this), we recognize a body of water known as the Persian Gulf. For the Arab League states, they call this the Arabian Gulf.
Is that Google being evil? Should Google decide what this is called? Or just leave it to the region to decide themselves.
What about the border of Kashmir? How should they handle that?
All well and good until we found out that Google updated the name before GNIS managed to do it. They went out of their way to score points as quickly as possible.
Why? It's an emotional subject. We can debate it heatedly without becoming irrational.
>In the most of the world and Iran (strangely we agree on this), we recognize a body of water known as the Persian Gulf. For the Arab League states, they call this the Arabian Gulf. Is that Google being evil?
I have no idea. I don't have enough cultural context to make an informed decision.
On the matter of Trump's renamings, Google does have that context.
We do not need to pretend that everything is decidable by simple one-line equations. We are all humans.
In the context of what is "acceptable" for human opinions: It is OK for Google to decide to concede to the president's renamings based on their existing umbrella policy. It is also OK for people to consider Google immoral for doing so.
Both things are within that range. We need to stop pretending otherwise with these weak "technically..." arguments and over-reliance on analogies that we tend toward as engineers.
I recently built our knowledge management system based (loosely) on the Karpathy LLM-Wiki model.
I'm not sure I understand why it is so important to be multi-agent, or for each agent to define who they are and what changes they made.
Our process uses git for tracking, so much of these details are captured natively in the merge.
Our process is
Drop a change, or something to document in an "inbox".
Agent makes a branch, processes the inbox materials, updates the documents that need to be updated, updates timelines, makes a note of others on the team that may need to be notified of changes.
Creator reviews the PR and ensures the changes match how they want the document to be updated.
Anyone that needs to be updated is now a reviewer on the PR.
I've just started rolling this out to the rest of the team, thankfully we are an engineering heavy organization so everyone is comfortable in Git.
The system keeps a running audit log, input is never deleted, it's stored, documents are updated, people are notified, etc. etc.
I'm just not sure what the service is offering, and how being multi-agent is solving a problem, but maybe I just haven't hit that problem yet.
It sounds like you've got a great system for your technical folks. The question is if that works super well for sales, design, support, etc. I'm trying to build something that works equally well for the technical & non-technical folks. All connected to the same system. All in auto-pilot so nobody has to manage it.
I'm amazed how many people I see taking photos of their coffee. Like "this is the one I want to remember". It's like the joy of novelty has been replaced by the potential and short-lived dopamine of a social like.
1. Reproducible, meaning executable, as well as modifiable, and 2. Reliable, meaning that the results are consistently trustworthy
Why does modifiable fit reproducible. Modifiable fits the open source theme, but not the science theme. Can someone set me straight on this if I am missing something?
Number 2 is something I've been thinking about more recently, and the definition of science from the post being "testable hypothesis and predictable".
Medicine is testable and predictable, but not reliable. To me reliability is the job of engineering. To take what is known in science and make it reliable.
I used to work at CSIRO (Australia's science and technology org) and I remember my boss telling me that researchers always think their work is ready to go from the lab into the real world, but it is our job as engineers to make that translation so that the work outside of the lab. That's what I think about when I think of reliable.
Thoughts?
reply