yes! I think it's yet another fad that is slowyly dying. I wish my company hadn't spent a whole team working for like 6 months creating an MCP server that no one will ever really use at scale

We used to use the jira mcp, then a jira skill, and now simply use the jira acli. Much cheaper and works fine

I couldn't find an example/screenshot of how the reminder would appear on the screen

Nor, alas, the pets!

First one’s free:

https://reminder.w3cub.com/guide/pets.html

And a few screenshots on the Mac App Store:

https://apps.apple.com/app/id6776577400

There's no screenshot of the free one. And the other screenshots also appear to be AI?? Or does it actually look like that?

That whole app looks vibe-coded. Look at the settings page in the App Store screenshot.

British Shorthair Cat is free

That's what the Basic Attention Token (BAT) from the Brave team tried (is still trying?) to do: https://brave.com/brave-rewards/

Kinda?

The fact that they chose to tie it to and advertise it as "get paid to see ads" is a significant turn-off in my mind even if the rest of the ecosystem theoretically works in functionally the same way.

In my mind, the entire point is to get away from advertising as a revenue stream entirely. I want to pay for the things I consume. If the advertising market has decided that my page impression is worth less than pocket change, I'd far rather just give that money to the publisher directly and avoid ads being part of the equation.

The core idea behind BAT isn't bad, but the marketing is pretty terrible if you're targeting people like me.

> The core idea behind BAT isn't bad

I think it is bad because it legitimizes bad practices of the marketing industry. "How bad could grabbing as much data from the population really be? We're sharing our profits!"

I'm not sure that is fair. I've been reading her blog for over a decade, and she has always taken a contrarian view.

I think it's fairly accurate, it's true that she was always contrarian, but back in the 2010's it was a more respectable type of questioning.

These days she's clearly rage baiting with titles, which is typical algorithm submission behaviour.

Loved this. Would it be possible to add subtitles?

What about a post or comment that includes proper names?

Aidan Gomez, Nick Frost, and Ivan Zhang, all of whom were Hinton's students at UofT started Cohere (https://cohere.com/about)

Not true. I've done SRED every year for the past ~7 years. It is work, but there are specialized consultants that do most of it. If the work is truly R&D (which would be the case for a cutting-edge AI company) and you track your work in JIRA or something like that, then it's mostly just writing a few pages describing the efforts.

I get your sentiment, but I think it's important for science communication to adapt to the times. Decades ago (and even as little as one decade ago), most scientists (maybe Hawking being the exception) who would dare appear in these 1hr documentaries would be belittled by the "hardcore" scientists with the same words you used "Science should not be over-simplified like that", "they are not real scientists, they just want to be on TV", etc.

The truth is that young people are mostly on TikTok et al, so this type of content needs to get there.

> "Science should not be over-simplified like that",

It is a difficult balance to strike, but science should be

> as simple as possible, and no simpler

The hard truth is that any simpler means inaccurate, which means when educating the public there __are__ inaccuracies. So the balance to strike is accuracy vs understanding. Most people do not understand the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, wave-particle duality, or many similar things (like how one of my namesake's Incompleteness Theorem, Super Position, and the Halting Problem are linked) yet will confidently correct explanations given that do hold more accuracy (even "teaching" those where it is clear one side is vastly more qualified than the other).

But think about it this way, the people getting mad at the over-simplification are not a force preventing public explanation but rather a pressure to find a better and more accurate explanation. The problem is when we frame these things as adversarial in the sense of enemies fighting rather than adversarial in the sense of improving one's self/group's position/arguments/discourse. Both sides can benefit from a reframing of these interactions by not holding the positions as equivalent to one's intellect but rather recognize that statements are independent. We are better as a coalition than separated, even with disagreement (especially with). It is clear here that everyone is on the same side after all, as all parties involved are seeking the same goal: better public education. It then becomes the duty to read between the lines to extract what the actual complaint is, because this is often also difficult to express (without a lengthy process) given we do not know one another's priors. We should not confuse critiques for attacks or dismissals. Nor should we dismiss or attack when we should critique! Though it is acceptable when errors are egregious or when people intentionally mislead. Unfortunately there is a large amount of that, but let's also distinguish idiocracy from maliciousness, as the former can be fixed (if we formulate with the above framing).

Yeah that's a fair point. As an early career scientist myself now and as someone not that interested in current social media trends, I certainly do risk being in the same spot as those 'hardcore' scientists.