Is there anything wrong with using AI (Claude Code/Codex/Gemini etc.) to design your website or your app? As an engineer, I know what my strengths are; and I am pretty damn sure "reactive website design" is not one of them. Why not use AI to do the heavy lifting?
Do you even really need "reactive web design"? Not every website needs to be a webapp, if the sites just a blog and links to the docs and downloads it's very reasonable to sit down and crank out some HTML and CSS like the good old days. Hell, use a static site generator and the HTML bit mostly disappears
And the converse is true also. I mean, look at NVIDIA. For the longest time they were just a gaming card company, competing with AMD. I remember alternating between the two companies for my custom builds in the 90s and it basically came down to rendering speed and frame rate.
But Jensen bet on the "compute engine" horse and pushed CUDA out, which became the defacto standard for doing fast, parallel arithmetic on a GPU. He was able to ride the BitCoin wave and then the big one, DNNs. AMD still hasn't caught on yet (despite 15 years having gone by).
I make the mistake of thinking its 2020 as well. CUDA was announced 2006 and released Feb 2007. So its actually 20 years that AMD/RADEON hasn't caught on that they need a good software stack.
Not only not the same size, 4-bit flops versus 64-bit flops, but not the same programmability either. the TPUs can do just matrix-multiplications and some supporting math.
Otherwise bitcoin mining rigs dwarf everything, if you just want to count raw operations per second.
Other than TPUs they're also planning for 960,000 Rubin GPUs [1] which can do 33 teraflops fp64 each, so over 30 classical exaflops, and with emulation it could be more than 100 exaflops.
> California's legislative leaders have known for months but did not make the issue public.
Why would they give up a chance to make more money from the people? The government never misses an opportunity to pad its coffers. Reminds me of the
CA State Parks department, which squirreled away millions of dollars and then was crying about lack of funding and hence wanted to shut down some parks.
Fun fact: I recently vacationed in Hawaii and couldn’t help but notice, despite groceries costing about 2x, gas there is a dollar cheaper than at home in California. California just can’t get enough tax money.
When you include all taxes (eg property tax), there's surprisingly little variation between states: For example, TX is 6th-lowest at 8.6% of income, while CA is 46th-lowest at 13.5% of income. Hawaii is 48th-lowest at 14.1%
Not really a fact, more of a bad anecdote. Currently HI gas is just $0.17 cheaper than CA, and I see many CA gas stations at $5.09, just like HI. A decent chunk of that comes from strict CA low pollution refining, you know, to help you breath better...
5.09 - lol, ok maybe in the rural parts of the state or something. In L.A. it's $5.50 at the very cheapest stations (read: go out of your way and maybe waste 10 minutes waiting, then wait in line to pay cash) and even Bakersfield is about $5.25 minimum. $5.60-5.75 is what I see on most normal stations.
The refining regulations are so great that they have succeeded in forcing nearly every refinery here to close now, so I guess gas prices can just go asymptotic, since California only allows this special unicorn gas, and I doubt any of these oil companies are going to open a new refinery in Arizona to make this special formulation, when they're closing the refineries here that used to make it. Maybe Sacramento can buy the closed refineries and restart them at great taxpayer expense and create our version of state-owned oil companies, except instead of printing money they'll be printing debt.
I don't know where you're getting your "data" from or if there's some bias making you not want to believe we're getting ripped off, but I can definitely provide very real data:
I blame Tim Ferriss and his "4 hour work week" book. I belive he talks about selling vitamins and letting some guys in India manage his site. Doesn't get his hands dirty. (This is from memory, so please forgive any misconceptions about it).
The core was simply that he created a successful business, but was spending more time running it than he would be working a normal full time job.
Then he delegated more and more responsibilities, allowing them to make decisions for anything up to a certain dollar amount, then kept raising the dollar amount.
This ended in him checking email a few times a week totaling about 4 hours altogether.
And what will Pakistan do with such an IMF loan? The Generals would siphon off most of it to buy their palatial Dubai houses and London condos. Until Pakistan cleans up its act, giving it more loans it throwing good money after bad.
> The Generals would siphon off most of it to buy their palatial Dubai houses and London condos.
Next door to other world leaders doing the same? Is that truly our motivation for not transferring the money? Some generals might illicitly buy houses?
> Until Pakistan cleans up its act
I'm sure "The Generals" are going to help there.
> giving it more loans it throwing good money after bad.
Abandoning them entirely as hostages is not acceptable.
I had sort of hoped our Democracy would afford for a more effective approach. If you find those generals so onerous why don't you go fly over there and assassinate them?
I'd be more interested in the details: what are the inputs given to the model? Does it get a live video feed? Does it know if/when employees show up and open the store? Does it get sales figures? Info on the individuals who bought things?
Storekeeping is more than just ordering merch and putting it up on hangars.
That basically means nothing. The article is very light on details.
Go into Claude right now. What does it have? Internet access after you prompt it.
Ok now pull out your phone, a credit card, a security camera. You can say "Claude these are yours, run a business", but nothing's going to happen until you build an actual harness.
Like the idea presented by the article is interesting, but it's basically just a fluff piece. The actual interesting article would have way more detail.
You’re not wrong, but the commenter I responded to clearly hadn’t bothered to read it at all since they were asking questions that are answered in the piece. And when that’s the case it’s hard to believe they would actually be interested in details even if they were available.
Yeah there's a lot of details which I'm guessing are actually being handled by humans either for legal reasons or practical ones.
Like OK, it's hiring people to run the place, but how are they getting the keys to the store? Someone needs to physically let them in.
What if the police get called because of shoplifting or if someone gets hurt in the store or something?
Who is filing the taxes for the business? They're probably not letting the AI handle that one. Move fast and break things is not a good idea when dealing with the IRS
A lot of this seems to depend on hiring good employees who can basically run the business themselves. Kind of like when a human owns a store I guess.
It's a system of interacting AI agents that is all gas, no brakes and deliberately completely ridiculous. Like OpenClaw, but in a different direction and with multiple agents.
reply