I can't find it now but there was a paper on HN a while ago that had gave agents a tool that searched through existing tools using embeddings. If the agent found a tool it could use to do its job, it used it, otherwise it wrote a new one, gave it a description, and it got saved in a database for future use with embeddings. I wonder what ever came of that.
Entirely missing the point, which is not that they in general can't survive, but that large proportions of animals who have grown up in captivity won't survive if just dumped out in the wild.
Since when did we start using file size as a measure of efficiency or optimization?
Off the top of my head: $() CSS parsing and DOM traversal was way slower than querySelector or getElementById, both of which predate jquery by years. Every $('.my-class') created wrapped objects with overhead. Something like $('#myButton').click(fn) involved creating an intermediate object just to attach an event listener you could’ve done natively. The deeper the method chaining got the worse the performance penalty, and devs rarely cached the selectors even in tight loops. It was the PHP of Javascript, which is really saying something.
By the early-2010s most of the library was dead weight since everyone started shipping polyfills but people kept plopping down jquery-calendar like it was 2006.
(I say this as someone who has fond memories of using Jquery in 2007 to win a national competition in high school, after which I became a regular contributor for years)
> (On skills, I think that the reason why there "aren't good examples out there" is because most people just have a stack of impromptu local setups. It takes a bit of work to extract those to throw them out into the public, and right now it's difficult to see that kind of activity over lots of very-excitable hyping, as you rightly describe.
Very much this. All of my skills/subagents are highly tailored to my codebases and workflows, usually by asking Claude Code to write them and resuming the conversation any time I see some behavior I don't like. All the skills I've seen on Github are way too generic to be of any use.
I thought skills were supposed to be sharable, but (a) ones that are being shared openly are too generic and not useful, (b) people are writing super specific skills and not sharing them.
Would strongly encourage you to open-source/write blog posts on some concrete examples from your experience to bridge this gap.
> (unwalkable towns where all of the houses are big garages in the front and no porches)
You can turn the garage into a hangout spot. A neighbor has a full bar with communal table plus TV for sports and he opens up the garage door once a week on a schedule (Sunday game day or whatever depending on the season) and whenever he feels like it on work week evenings. As people pass by we invite them over and after a few months everyone knows that when the garage is open, they can come over for a drink and to shoot the shit. Low pressure social interactions that often turn into weekend outings, regular poker games, etc.
Now years later we get impromptu block parties when he brings out the grill onto the driveway. It’s done wonders for our community in an otherwise unwalkable SoCal suburb.
This works wonders. I did it accidentally. In March 2020 when my gym closed, I started working out every night in the garage. After a couple of weeks a neighbor who I only ever said "hi" to wondered by and asked if he could join since his gym was closed. After a while more showed up, and now I have like 12 people every day show up. One Friday someone brought a bottle of whiskey and we hung out after the workout and now weekly happy hours are a regular occurrence. The neighbors who don't workout stop by after the workout for happy hour. It's almost become expected and folks schedule their weeks around it so that they can be there for drinks in the evening. As a super introvert nerd, I never thought I'd be the center of community in my neighborhood.
This is something I absolutely would not feel comfortable doing unless I was warmly encouraged to join in, that's how I've been turned into a social outcast in my youth. I know some people who for a fact feel the same way.
Maybe one solution is therapy, to help massage them out of their shell, to help them learn to be vulnerable and unafraid and friendly. But many of them refuse to go to therapy for whatever reason also.
These are things I will be running into as I try to resolve this. I have already encountered a young man named Daniel who remembered me, and told me that he was hospitalized, and that the thought of me and my sign helped him get through it. I'm dealing with people on all spectrums of mental health.
In fact, maybe that's kind of the point. I'm trying to reach out to people who refuse to go to therapy, who have internal thoughts berating them all day long, and I have the unique opportunity of helping them through the darkness and into the light of the truth, that they are valuable and lovable, if only people saw the true them, and trusted them to become that.
I am affected by extreme conscientiousness and would be described as a social outcast in my current state I'm sure.
I've always had a decent social network through proximity alone (neighborhood, education, etc.) and in this comfort, built a harsh prejudice against outgoing behavior. I'm not even sure why I held this perspective so deeply for so long, but I reviled the thought of intruding on others and only warranted intrusion on those I judged willful intruders. Most of my relationships are sufficiently available, but not very deep given my refusal to assert vulnerably (including against others vulnerabilities).
I was lucky to find Dostoevsky, Camus, and Hesse notably, which helped break some of my absurd dispositions. However, my entire social network was still rotten on a basis of inauthentic connection and intellectualizing this can only go so far. You must live the perspective and it is hard and vulnerable.
Thank you for these words, I find your mission deeply humane and I strive to live through a similar spirit.
Yep. I grew up in the era of ‘stranger danger’. We were explicitly taught as kids to fear strangers and socialising. We were taught “don’t be rude and butt in to conversations uninvited”, etc.
Still, something else is off. In the 90s, the Internet was a way to expand your social circle. So many friends made on IRC groups that moved into real life.
Nowadays yeah, commenting on Reddit and chatting to friends in message groups does feel like socialising, even though you might go two weeks without seeing anyone other than coworkers, cashiers (maybe) and Uber Eats delivery drivers.
> This is something I absolutely would not feel comfortable doing
Part of it I think is to endure the uncomfortable for a bit.
I felt really uncomfortable in social settings, and still do sometimes. But I forced myself to ignore those feelings. Now I'm at a point that if people think I'm weird or whatever then that's their problem.
I try not to be rude, be considerate and such thing, I'm not totally unhinged. But I am much more relaxed about just being me. Sometimes it doesn't work, but often it's all good.
on my son's bday i drug our firepit out to the front yard and setup some chairs for my wife and I to welcome his friends as they arrived. Maybe a dozen people in our neighborhood walking their dog or out for a run just dropped by to say hello and talk. I guess the fire looked very inviting (it was a chilly evening). I'm going to start doing it regularly, it's an easy way to meet people in your community.
There’s also Cloudflare tunnels for stuff that you want to be available to the internet but dont want to open ports and deal with that. You can add an auth policy that only works with your email and Github/whatever SSO.
Pepsi can probably afford to run Coca Cola through a mass spec to get an idea of concentrations and even get the processed coca leaf used by Coca Cola (there’s one company in the uS with a license from the DEA).
Pepsi probably already have done this and likely Coke have done the same to Pepsi. However, Pepsi did also see what happened with New Coke and likely don’t wish to repeat that footgun of changing the formula. Plus people buy Pepsi because they want Pepsi not Coca-Cola
But the difference is Pepsi would also have had dedicated laboratories and food scientists, scientifically controlled exhaustive testing and unlimited access to any ingredient they wanted. Thus one would expect Pepsi's testing to have had much finer granularity than in this YouTube video).
With millions of dollars tied up in just a few percent of sales you can bet Pepsi knows just about as much as Coke does about Coke's ingredients (and vice versa of course).
The research for both companies is more about the fine minutiae—keeping an optimal differentiation between the two products more than treading on each other's territory. Trampling over each other for market share is done through advertising, not by making their products the same.
Pepsi probably also has had access to Coke's supply chain and long ago acquired samples of various inputs before mixing, which would make analysis easier. The two companies know they're competing mostly on production management and brand image, not secret ingredients. A decade or so ago a secretary from Coke tried to sell some of the company's "secrets" to Pepsi. Instead of jumping on the opportunity to get Coke's secrets, they contacted Coke's legal department and the FBI, with the three working together to prosecute her.
reply