Nice to see someone taking a swing at a C++ GUI framework. Implementing a real on is not for the weak. If it's really works, it'll be expensive to license.
I got hooked on Pink Floyd's "Momentary Lapse of Reason". Listened to it on a 10 hour drive back home from Houston in my custom VW beetle. It was custom because I "built" it out of several broken down beetles and so it was a tense drive home, checking my car's vitals every so often.
I have never forgotten that long intense drive home, in the summer, with no air conditioning, and playing Pink Floyd on full volume the whole way.
Because of this, "The Wall" has always been Floyd's second best album.
A Momentary Lapse of Reason is right up there with Dark Side of the Moon in number of listen-throughs for me. Back when I was in high school it was one of the albums I’d put on prior to getting lost in working on something or another in Photoshop.
I’m really excited to show off a project I’ve been tweaking and tuning for more than seven months.
One thing that drove me nuts about running LLMs locally was having to use terminals, install Python, and write code for the most basic things. I write software, but I don’t want to have to write it just to use a chatbot. So, I made Wingman with a friendly interface that lets you get started with zero coding or terminals required. It runs on MacOS and Windows, and even evaluates AI models up front to determine if they will run on your machine.
There’s other stuff it does, too, like let you save prompts, set system prompts per conversation, and change AI models mid-conversation. I added a way to sort models by popular or trending. It’s been pretty helpful to me for staying on top of all of the new models dropping.
But it still has a little way to go to be ready for really special things like planning and reasoning. So, I need to get some more feedback from people on different configurations. I’d love it if you checked it out, saw if it was useful, and maybe broke it so I could find fixes.
Hey! I noticed you in a comment about cold calling. I have been doing something similar (near 100 in the past month), and am at a dilemma regarding how to approach it. I am curious if you are still cold calling.
> to whom, and what will all this money be spent on?
FTFA:
“Commercial jets being delivered today may still be flying in 2050, and new designs powered by batteries or hydrogen will take years, if not decades, to materialize. So for now, the best option is to fill up conventional airliners with less-polluting copycat fuels that don’t require more drilling for oil.
…
The new RefuelEU rule will require airlines to fill their planes with a 2% sustainable aviation fuel blend by 2025, rising to 6% by 2030 and reaching 70% by 2050.
…
Rather than force airlines to pay for their own carbon cleanup, other proposals have emerged, including a tax on passengers.”
"transfer of wealth" is a political term. SO I am guessing that you want to make a political discussion.
meanwhile, on the "reality" side of things. Air traffic is common and not going away, what to do about pollution?
Consider this statement for yourself: Airlines are in a unique position in the economy. Their profits are fragile, their equipment is highly expensive, they require huge amounts of resources to be useful, and they are very much in demand for many reasons. In economic terms "people and companies are willing to pay for air travel and, people and companies cannot fly by themselves"
There is no law of economics that says that airlines have to exist! The invention of the airplane itself was considered science fiction for a thousand years+. We have to find a social balance that works -- the existing technology is new. There is nothing to say that airlines as they exist today, at the price point they bear, is "sustainable" in any way.
So - an economic change has to happen, and it can be painful and strife-ridden, or it can be negotiated via secret deals, or we could have clear thinking and do what is efficient and fair. But most importantly, these changes are not optional ! Environmental crisis is "real" .
The coolest part of this whole discussion is that we can finally compare weed and alcohol.
Before the current weed era, weed was always compared favorably, by smokers, to alcohol with the adage: Weed is illegal, yet I've never seen a bar fight after everyone gets high.
Now we can do a real comparison of the effects of weed smoking on the general public, the same way we've done with drinking.
True story: I was talking to an academic who was doing a study, aiming to get people to fill out a big questionnaire on health and lifestyle. As an incentive, people got a voucher for a gym. "Don't you think you'd get different results if you offered 200 cigarettes or a bottle of vodka instead?" I asked, "Well that wouldn't get past the ethics board!"
And my point is that this is weird and lurid, not "cool". It's like cheering that a smallpox outbreak occurred so you can study the disease progression.
The point seems to be interesting in a way which might be called "cool" if one happens to be so interested. Even if one finds it lurid they may also find it interesting or "cool".
> It's like cheering that a smallpox outbreak occurred so you can study the disease progression.
I believe I understand the point. We don't want to celebrate a negative occurrence simply because there is silver lining. However, it's hard to see past a certain false equivalence that's being made. A disease which propagates ought to be treated differently from personal choices even if the things are equally destructive to the individual.
But I'm a philosopher at heart. Let's say a person chooses to infect themselves with a disease to facilitate study of some aspect of it. Let's also say that they are able to do this in an environment that all but guarantees the disease will not propagate except possibly to other willing volunteers. Should this research be prevented? Would the results of this research definitely not be "cool", meaning "interesting"?
It's more like, suppose people are purposefully infecting themselves with smallpox, and then suddenly the common cold is legalized so people switch to that. I could consider that "cool." Possibly similar story with vaping vs. smoking but the decrease in harmfulness is less obvious there.
“Life-saving Drugs are too Inexpensive to Produce”
It’s a ridiculous headline, I know. But, that is the gist of this article. It just doesn’t say so. Pharmaceutical drugs, and the pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated. It is very expensive to comply with drug manufacturing and distribution regulations. Those regulatory expenses are so high that it is simply not profitable enough for any company to produce these cheap generic drugs at a sustainable profit. It doesn’t make sense for a pharmaceutical company to comply with all regulations and make a profit on inexpensive, generic drugs.
The real headline is “Generic Drugs are Over Regulated, Making Them too Expensive to Produce”
Your claim doesn’t make sense any more to me than the claim in the article. Costly regulation should simply drive the cost of generics up until they are profitable at a new price.
Your claim is that the market cannot deal with increased costs of a product.
> Your claim is that the market cannot deal with increased costs of a product.
which might be true, if the person cannot afford it at this higher price, despite needing the medication. For example, the gov't subsidies for these people aren't high enough.
Despite what people might think, medication and healthcare is not absolutely inelastic.
