I agree with you in spirit but this harms the potential for these new products to emerge. You’re saying you don’t want them to be able to accrue a data moat. It sounds good for user privacy and optionality later on but it makes it harder for these services to get started as they dont see that model as possible.
I have a directory called workspace where there’s a projects directory and the main area is for messing around. Just setup workspace once as a project.
You can activate the uv venv from anywhere just fine, just do source path_to_sandbox/.venv/bin/activate. Probably makes sense to define a shortcut for that like activate sandbox. Your conda env is also linked to a directory, it’s just a hidden one, you can also create the uv obe somewhere hidden. But I get it to some extent conda has this large prefilled envs with a lot of stuff in it already that work together. Still if you then end up needing anything else you wait ages for the install. I find conda so unbearable by now that I voluntarily switch every conda thing I have left over to uv the second I need to touch the conda env.
Spot on, this is a solid abstraction to build upon. I always felt MCP was a misstep in comparison to OpenAI’s focus on OpenAPI specs. HATEOAS is the principle that has become more useful as agents drive applications.
Brilliant, I have always felt that one of the major problems with machine learning, consequently LLMs, is the boring average based loss functions that under-represent the unique and the rare. It seems our collective civilization is using a similar function and heading in the same direction of optimizing for the average.
The world is rapidly homogenising. You see it with “air space” interior design - coffee shops have the same aesthetic in every major city in the world. You see it in local fashions. You see it as a tourist - travel anywhere in the world and the chances are you’ll find the same kind of shop selling the same kind of trinket. Made in China with a subtly different graphic on it to represent the country you’re in.
This has been happening ever since trade routes were established across Eurasia (Silk Road) or the Americas were discovered. It only keeps accelerating as movement and trade becomes easier.
If pockets of humanity could isolate themselves from the rest, we could get diversity growing again, that one sentinel island might be our only hope.
My take on “Hard on purpose” is that it’s plausible deniability. It’s not for showing off, it’s to make the situation polite in a way that you can’t rationally attribute malice.
More generally, perhaps, leaving an out for either party to avoid losing face in the case one side wants to contest a statement or pull back from a stance.
Norwegian culture is big on compromise - we see that even in politics, where it's not uncommon for a party that often has 12-15 parties represented to negotiate settelements that gets the support of 10+ parties even if only half of them are needed for a majority, for example, because it's often seen as preferable to pushing through a bigger change with narrower support.
And compromises feel like they are easier to reach when positions are couched in "maybe"'s that leaves plenty of rooms to adjust or pull back without losing face.
In a sense that of course is plausible deniability for the harder position, but not because they necessarily object to people thinking that is what you want, but ensure not to give the impression you're unconditionally committed to it.
I don't know if this is always good - sometimes it is, but it also does mean that it's easy for things to end up being endlessly debated in cases where people latch on to language that leaves the door open for "polite disagreement" more than it perhaps ought to.
Politics is the absolute peak of this kind of culture. You never know when you might need a favor down the road so it's best to be friends with anyone even just marginally aligned with your platform. Going beyond the minimum compromise keeps everyone happy enough to remember it. Politics is like dealing with a dozen different prisoners dilemmas every day. You could act in self-interest but you still need a majority vote or the consensus of your underlings to actually get the work done.
In the US, we've kinda swung back on the prisoner's dilemma. GOP finally figured out that they don't need to worry about bipartisanship or even having the consensus of their entire party. Turns out, if you've got the all three branches of government under control, you can just do whatever you'd like.
reply