Same at my company. Moved to teams for the lovely “cost savings”. It’s a hog, nobody likes it. So then a portion of the company went to get on Gather which is cool. And the rest of the company never gave up slack so it’s this fun thing where nobody knows where any meeting is and it can be in 1 of 3 apps because why would it be simple?
Agreed. With simple stuff it works. But then again with simple stuff it’s pretty fast to do it sequentially.
With complex stuff I often have open the “thinking” output so I can stop/interrupt with guidance. Without that it’s often garbage output that I then have to work to fix, which is difficult to do while you’re also doing the same with a parallel process.
I tried yesterday for about an hour to have Claude design make me a simple logo (just the symbol) and didn’t get anywhere good. I’m sure for certain things like UI it’s great, and so is just Claude code, but this Claude Design thing very much to me feels like a demo and not a product. Maybe one day!
Claude Design is just a big opinionated prompt: https://www.lobsterpack.com/blog/claude-design-trenchcoat/. Among other things, it knows it isn't that great at drawing SVGs, so it won't try unless you force it to. For a logo, try drawing it with vanilla Claude Code as if it was a separate project: ask a "design agency" to ask you questions, answer them, then make a detailed brief of what you want to draw, then make it output an exact plan of what and where will it draw, lastly ask the chatbot to do the actual drawing using sub-agents for drawing individual components. Also add a "render it to a raster and make sure it looks right" step as well.
Sure, the blog post is AI generated (I'm not a native English speaker, our bunch is often shy about our English language skills), yet the research I've done there is manual.
I found it interesting that (contrary to the popular opinion) there wasn't some magic, e.g. a novel model, happening with Claude Design, especially magic enough that Figma wouldn't be able to replicate if they felt like it.
Also, apparently human (not artificial) neurons were behind that huge prompt, very well aware of the limitations of the model, cheating here and there to make Design's outputs more impressive, making it "create a (design) plan" beforehand, i.e. all the stuff that we the common laymen could do ourselves with the same tools.
> Also, you certainly got some brass, linking an entirely AI generated article in a forum where extreme distaste is registered for entirely AI generated posts.
> How is your comment not downvoted to oblivion?
I'm sure there's a polite way to say things.
I heavily dislike LLM content, but if you read the content, it's actually got information of value.
That was the polite way of saying things. The phrase "if you couldn't be bothered to write it why would anyone bother to read it" was a saying from usenet times.
The truth is it took the author less time to "write" that piece than you to read it. It's a blog. There's no deadline, and yet they couldn't take the time to actually type out their own thoughts.
> I heavily dislike LLM content, but if you read the content, it's actually got information of value.
If it was so valuable the author would have written it themselves.
Agreed, and the answer is pretty obvious as to how they start making profit. The answer is in this thread, CRANKING the cost up immensely once they establish agreements between the duopoly leaders in the field to do so in tandem and buy up any competition that seeks to challenge them.
I’m thinking 20x what the cost is now is where they’ll land. It’ll be a massive line item for software dev shops.
Or switch to using the way cheaper open weight models from various providers who don’t have to subsidize training costs so can just race to the bottom on inference pricing…
The quality isn’t really SOTA yet but at some point I assume they’ll be good enough (maybe already are?).
I recently did the math and was floored to see I’d be spending 1.3k per year on streaming alone. So I said screw it, bought a nas and 36 TB of hard drives and set up an arr stack. I cancelled all of our streaming subscriptions 2 months ago and it’s been the best decision I’ve ever made. Plus my whole family is doing the same from all around town. I’m saving my extended family on the order of 5-6k per year total.
The nas is going to pay itself off in a few months, then it’s all savings from there. If only these media billionaires didn’t get so greedy, I would have happily kept paying them.
Especially with Claude code, setting up something like this is basically just sitting down and prompting for a couple of hours.
The emerging benefits are nice too. Like we don’t have to sift through junk of Netflix or Hulu to find stuff we would actually watch. All of it is stuff we would watch because we added it ourselves. Really fun!
Another huge benefit is you can actually get high-bitrate streaming. Ripping a 4k Blu-ray & streaming it from home (for those who may not want to sail the seas) is sooooo much higher quality than typical streaming.
It is so sad how with the internet we have accepted terrible media quality. Instant messaging and social media reduces photos to 1MP and heavily compressed. It's fine for a photo or meme you are only looking at once and scrolling past. But if it's something you'd want to save, the quality is garbage.
I'd honestly rather apps stop providing hosted media and just do the delivery, let me worry about backing up history. iMessage seems to be the only one sending things in full quality.
iMessage doesn't require you to store history in icloud, it can just store everything locally if you want. But yes, I'd rather not have stored history, or the option to pay for storage than to have all media crushed beyond recognition.
A few times I've wanted to print something and found it was sent over an IM app and compressed to 100kb rendering it useless.
I do a hybrid, where I keep lowest tier subscriptions but choose to watch content off of our media server setup at the highest available quality, without advertisement.
I don't mind paying for what I consume, but God damn is the value proposition at the floor currently. Here even the rather expensive mid tier subscription gives you 1080p at most with all the big players. It's as if they somehow converged to this model and aren't competing anymore. Coincidence, I'm sure.
That whole fiasco actually soured me on Anthropic. They were clearly super desperate to take blood money. "Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences."
Can someone explain to me how we haven’t regulated the hell out of the clearly illegal sector of betting on shit that can clearly be insider-traded with little to no scrutiny?
Does it need to be regulated? This isn’t pension funds placing bets risking people’s investment money.
People using Polymarket are gambling on pretty random things and must understand the risk
, whether it is on major geopolitical events or someone counting cars going through a junction these events can all be manipulated pretty easily.
People want to gamble on random things? Let them.
If anything is regulate the other side, people in government can’t use sites like polymarket because I don’t want them making stupid decisions so bets fall one side or another.
Polymarket gamblers have pressured at least one journalist regarding reporting of missile strikes. This requires regulation or, as others here have suggested, non-anonymity, maybe other measures too.
It's already illegal to threaten journalists. In America we generally make bad things illegal, not activities that could become motivation for bad things. Someone threatened me on League of Legends last week. Should we ban the game?
>In America we generally make bad things illegal, not activities that could become motivation for bad things.
Not really, even in America. Like, take alcohol regulation. Your model would be "drunken bar fights are already illegal, so just prosecute that, problem solved."
Except that, historically, there's so much of that that it overwhelms the ability of law enforcement to keep up. So we try to remove the driving factors: "Okay, you can drink in public, but only[1] at these licensed places that are heavily incentivized to prevent fights before they start."
I'm not advocating any particular position, I'm just saying that if there's a persistent situation that heavily incentivizes violence, then it's not unreasonable to push back on that mechanism rather than just try to mop up the violence after the fact. Which specific situations merit that is up for debate, but it shouldn't be controversial that some situations should be handled this way.
[1] Yes, I'm simplifying, just focus on the general point here.
What if 100% of the bets you place in a slot machine go to the owner? It's the exact same thing here.
Slot machines are regulated so the game is fair and they're not simply machines where the rich steal from the poor. Such a machine would be scam by definition.
I'm not a polymarket gambler or a gambler at all really, so I have no skin in this game but why does it have to be fair?
I would say casinos and slot machines are already stealing from the poor and giving to the rich and already a scam, people play them (aside from addicts) because there is a chance they will win, they know not everyone wins.
I'm in favour of people being treated fairly I just think regulation isn't what is required here, more education "play this but the odds are tilted away from you".
It would actually be better if slot machines never paid out and 100% of their bets went to the house. Very very few people would use them. They're addictive exactly because they do pay out sometimes.
Hmm interesting, my gut is that i'm not against it. I think in reality it does happen (take a look at Lucas Paqueta in UK soccer) so may as well accept it - you'll never know who has more to lose (win) a player betting their side will lose or a player on the opponent side betting their side will lose so it should even out.
Gambling is a risk, it isn't just the house's edge but anything can go wrong on the day.
I would suggest at least having KYC (know your customer) rules which all banks, financial exchanges and traditional online bookmakers are required to implement would be reasonable for these markets?
At least it would somewhat hinder the type of activity we’ve seen (where journalists are threatened by criminals to withdraw or change their stories) without just banning such betting exchanges outright.
I think making the bets not anonymous is sufficient imho.
If a gov't official (including the president) is leaking classified information, there's already laws about that isnt there? (Whether it's effective is another question - i'm assuming it's currently effective).
Its potentially much worse: we don't know if the threats and bets are isolated. While diplomacy happens, the threats may very well be exaggerated to create the market opportunity.
It's even worse. A federal court just ruled that these markets cannot be meaningfully regulated by states because they are selling financial instruments rather than providing a gambling platform and federal law preempts state regulation on these financial instruments.
I mean... insiders are betting on war crimes. Yes, the insider betting is bad but it doesn't even touch the edges compared to committing war crimes. And if the government is committing war crimes, why would they care about something so inconsequential as betting on them?
I wanted to reply, but I think I just don't understand your comment at all.
Are you saying the "sector of betting on shit that can clearly be insider-traded" is illegal? Does that include like gold and S&P500?
The way I see it, prediction markets' main function is to connect gamblers with insiders posessing useful information. Are you concerned for the gamblers losing? But they were gonna lose anyway, one way or the other. Or are you concerned about the insiders winning? Sucks, but at least the public gets information by way of the prediction market being more accurate.
I’m concerned about people with addictions being exploited by greedy degenerates who don’t care about the negative externalities with which they’re burdening our society, yes.
Do you propose to make all addictive endeavours illegal? Ban porn? It might actually be a good idea in theory, but I doubt it'd work in practice, who knows.
Sports gambling was illegal in most states just a few years ago. Prediction markets also didn't exist. We have ample evidence to show us that it did work fine to ban these things. We aren't talking about some hypothetical world. We are talking about a world that existed just ten years ago.
Gambling is particular, specific burden and crime against society that's been recognized as such for thousands of years.
The recent experiments with legalizing it on an industrial scale are simply experiments with legalizing crime. We don't have to touch the stove but I guess simply being told about what happens isn't enough for us.
Nobody is forcing anybody to place the bets, but if you see credible money flows into eg. Middle East cease fire bets, you can decide to fill up your tank today, or not. We can’t think for you here, if you don’t see anything useful in the price then it’s time to educate yourself until you do. You should consider these bets more trustworthy than any news you read in mainstream media. There might even be a way to fund journalism here, though ethics are quite muddy indeed.
I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees.
Why did the U.S. assassinate the leader of a country across the planet in the first place? Because Benjamin Netanyahu wanted us to because he needs our help to create instability in the region so Israel can expand further. That and the billionaire military industrial complex players felt like they wanted some more money.
Name it what it is. Immoral, racist, and a repetition of the same bullshit we’ve been doing in the Middle East for decades. Calling it a strategic failure gives it more value than it deserves.
More people need to read this NYT article. Not only is it astounding the detail and extent of these leaks from the situation room, but what you’re saying is even more true than you might realize.
Netanyahu literally threw a presentation up on a conference call to to persuade Trump to do this for him.
I’m having difficulty getting archive.is to work on my browser right now so here’s the plain link:
It's a shame too, because the two subjects appear eminently linked, and not just for the distraction effect. There's no real reason people can't be condemning this ill thought out war as being an outright result of the kompromat Mossad has on Trump.
I don't doubt that Netanyahu is the reason, but I can't see how this helps Israel expand.
He didn't need to attack Iran to get to Lebanon. True, Iran would have helped Hezbollah if it weren't kept busy, but he's not going to get his "buffer zone" anyway. It's just an opportunity to harass Lebanon.
He certainly doesn't need to attack Iran to expand in the West Bank. He's building settlements as fast as he can.
Attacking Iran punishes them for October 7th, and delays the next one of those. (Gaza is quiet for the moment, but nothing has actually changed.)
> or the longer term risk of the iranian nuclear programme.
According to Netanyahu himself the state of the Iranian nuclear programme has been the same for 30 years: "they're right on the cusp of nuclear weapons". The logical conclusion is then that there is almost no risk, quite the opposite - there is stability.
Note how completely different this is from e.g. NK. Despite being even much more closed off than Iran, the progression through the years was pretty accurate. Went from "they will want to get nukes" to "they've started working on nukes" to "they're close to nukes" to "they have nukes".
I don't follow that conclusion - just because Israel has said there has been a risk for 30 years clearly doesn't mean that there isn't a real risk now.
I don't need to offer my own analysis to know that "Netanyahu asked trump to go to war because he wanted to create instability and that it was because of the the military industrial complex" is the sort of analysis you get if your research is 2 or 3 facebook posts.
I was dumb enough when I was 11 to sign up for Adsense under my Mom’s name and put it on a php-based meme sharing site I made that my fellow 5th graders used.
Anyway, I noticed I could make a couple dollars a week. So I had my friends sit there and spam load the site. Made about 80$ until Google banned me (my mom) for life from Adsense
I have a VERY similar story about me adding AdSense to a Club Penguin hacks, tips, and tricks blog.
But I think I need to correct you -- what you and I did wasn't dumb at all. It was quite innovative for our pre-teen brains. This was my first exposure to running a business and setting up a team and thinking like an entrepreneur. Just imagine all the ice cream and Pokémon cards we could have bought if it had worked...
reply