There's a very good chance that everyone telling you that the meds are not helpful have no experience needing meds. Don't worry about what they have to say

Quick suggestions:

It's good to learn to be alone, but don't be alone too much

journaling

meetup app

Just Serve app

Facebook dating, bumble, hinge: you can say you are just looking for friendship in your profile

Big caveat:

"Let's be honest about performance. In interpret mode, circt-sim is far too slow for real-world use. Even with the JIT improvements we made, the simulator is still 100-1000x slower than the competition."

The industry needs open source tools so badly. I've told the EDA companies (at DVCon) that the first one to open source their tools would suddenly get 100% market share and that they could monetize the same way Red Hat does. Looks like they better hurry up.

Worked on printer firmware, can confirm.

"If it looks good, it is good." was a mantra

Hi, I worked on printer firmware. It was fun! Printers are robots, when you get right down to it.

Now, when they downsized and reorganized and put me on the windows driver team, I left the company within a week.

This is amazing because it's the same logic and argument about how to do good software engineering that's been around for 40 years. If you just write good enough requirements, a good enough, detailed specification, then your software team can't fail, even if they are low-cost engineers from a developing nation. It's the classic Waterfall method.

That was totally upended by agile, that emphasized that yes, a clear, unambiguous specification is needed, and the best language for that is a programming language. Don't waste time writing a detailed spec in English, get right to writing it in code that you can execute and get immediate feedback on.

Now people want LLMs to write the code for them, so they are back to saying we just need to give the LLMs clear enough direction, a clear specification. It's amazing to witness history not exactly repeat itself, but very clearly rhyming

Are you disappointed that the LLM generated random games, or are you disappointed that the dog didn't actually care about the games?

Neither are that surprising to me, tbh.

The LLM being able to generate random games is kinda expected behavior. It's trained on sequence probability distributions that include the code for a great many games and nudged toward doing so by the human user. I'm disappointed that the dog is basically used as a noise generator here. A process driven by the desires of the dog in a meaningful way would be more interesting and at least seems somewhat plausibly technologically feasible, and the article's title kind of implies it. I am especially disappointed because what most excites me about new technologies is applications that were not possible before its invention, which this seemed like it could be an example of

Such a weird project, starting with the weird name that sets all kinds of wrong expectations

The name is weird, the project is sound :-)

"But then you need to fight bots day and night and do some serious sandboxing on your server which you might be using for other things and is likely to have other accessible endpoints for people to exploit."

For a static read-only website? No, that's not necessary.

Very true, though it has improved a over the years. Most people haven't noticed because when git has introduced newer simpler commands it hasn't deprecated the old ones. You can now use it like this, but most people don't know it:

git switch some-branch # edit files git restore file2 # undo changes to file2 git stage file1 git commit

Instead of the old workflow using checkout with a bunch of different flags.

I agree though that git is needlessly obtuse. I advocated for mercurial instead of git for years because mercurial was so much more user friendly, but git won. I hear good things about jj now