Just speculating and thinking out loud. I think this might be a good news for AI-skeptics. Going with IPO means that investors finally want to get some cash that they cannot get by any other means. There are good examples of private market companies staying like that for many years because they are profitable, they have plenty of cash, and they have a queue of investors eager to put more cash
So what does it mean in this particular case? The board and investors probably don’t see it being realistic to become profitable soon, and maybe even worry about AI ceiling, so they want to profit now
I'm not sure how you drew the conclusion they don't think it will be profitable soon or an AI ceiling.
The only thing we can realistically glean from IPO is the need for more funds which are not able to be provided by private markets on the terms a private lender/investor may want.
Insiders will profit from this liquidity event, but I suspect the earliest investors will stay put only liquidating enough to make their funds look great while still keeping an eye on the future growth.
Idk, with the One they already seem to try to claim too many things for a single device. Adding a keyboard and a bigger screen will be even bigger scope creep. As a Zero user, I really like the compact form-factor
And just personal imo, for coding on the go something like macbook air seems to be a way more comfortable option. I know that you wrote that you fit gpd in you pants, but man, you know that this use case is even more niche than flipper zero
The job market all over the world is ultimately changing. Wars, AI, energy crisis, etc. — it’s a combination of factors. Yet, the article is too shallow, so it doesn’t clarify much.
The two examples are not really representative, “press spokesman at a small industry association” and entry-level “apprenticeship in marketing communications and a bachelor’s degree in international management”. I don’t want to say that they are completely bs jobs but, well, these are quite niche. Both seem to be only ‘affordable’ for a strong economy, not during an economic instability.
What I’d like to get answers to is why if everyone says about shortages of nurses, doctors, teachers, plumbers and other handymen, highly qualified engineers capable of making some complex stuff like rockets; I don’t really see any policy makers pushing to make such jobs more appealing, I don’t see people around talking about moving to any of such areas even if they struggle or lose their office/corporate jobs, or talking about their kids learning to do one of them
And here I have the same impression: there's a lot of talk and very little action (not nothing, just too little in comparison). An important source of problem identification talk is the opposition, which noticed that to criticize is very easy, it attracts attention and supporters, while actually FIXING things is a shitload of work and better leave it for the others. It reminds me of a recent read about Locard's exchange principle: every contact will bring something into the scene and leave with something from it, and the opposition cannot stand to be washed down by actually trying to fix something.
> What I’d like to get answers to is why if everyone says about shortages of nurses, doctors, teachers, plumbers and other handymen, highly qualified engineers capable of making some complex stuff like rockets; I don’t really see any policy makers pushing to make such jobs more appealing, I don’t see people around talking about moving to any of such areas even if they struggle or lose their office/corporate jobs, or talking about their kids learning to do one of them
I believe that the people in charge don't want to improve working conditions, but in fact want to increase hours, lower pay, and deregulate. So they complain about shortages (without mentioning "of people willing to accept those conditions") and push to lower standards.
And unfortunately they are able to get major media outlets to publish that message without questioning it.
(Also, there was a genuine nursing shortage for a while after Covid, because conditions were so bad a lot of people left the profession. People may still talk about that even though it has resolved now.)
I’m also confused by their examples. All of them seem to be perfect renders/exports from 3D models — this is not the use case where I see it the most useful. Making a parametrized CAD model out of a hand-drawn sketch — yes, please
I think this is true under assumption that you know the CAD tool well. From my recent experience (I have a 3D printer), I regularly find myself in a situation where I know what I want to do, I can do measurements and I can make a sketch on a paper. Yet, making it a proper 3D model in something like FreeCAD is super tedious. I know OpenSCAD relatively well, but when it comes to something more complex I struggle a lot. The recent example, I was making a water tap for Lego duplo kitchen sink for my little one :)
So I would really appreciate a good AI/LLM tool that I can feed my sketch and parameters and it can save me hours of searching web and watching tutorials on how to extrude a circle over a curve
BTW, any existing AI tools work really well with OpenSCAD, so if you want a parametrized model that can be made out of simple shapes, I highly recommend this flow
Your comment on how you feel trying to execute a model is similar to the inverse of how many Mechanical Engineers (used to) talk about coding - they know what they want, they can write down what they want a program to do, they just don't know what to type out in a programming language or how to compile the code or use the IDE, etc etc.
There are mechanical engineers out there who can literally model objects nearly as fast and they can 'think' about the layout of said object. If you look at the complexity of, say, a CAD model from a real, highly complex aluminum casting section of an automotive subframe, or the living-room-sized cross-fuselage spar forging of a fighter aircraft, with hundreds of ribs and fillets and features- and compare that to the simple model you are trying to make in OpenSCAD, you should quickly realize the parallels in difficulty you are trying to express (similar to the person without knowledge of C++ or Python watching someone be able to build applications by typing code from their fingertips as if they already knew what to type...)
You are struggling for a few reasons- 1., it is a knowledge hurdle of an entire field you are trying to surmount- again, go watch someone actually model a real, complex part and watch the speed, they can do so in a tool like Solidworks, CATIA, NX, etc... at a rate that is far different because they have experience that it can honestly take even good people years to accumulate - and 2. they are using professional tools - you mention OpenSCAD, like it is CAD, but it isn't. It is programmatic mesh generation, and it turns out that programmatically typing out how to generate complex things is much more difficult than a combination of a graphical GUI and graph-based generator that all big CAD programs figured out starting in the 1980s. If those tools you use were really the best way to make complex models 'paramaterized', then why do we design our fighter jets, Formula 1 cars, or Space X rockets in Dassault's CATIA or Siemen's NX ?
You want a LLM to take a sketch to your CAD, but what I'm saying is, there are people out there that can skip the sketch and build the CAD as fast as you can likely hand draw the first sketch, and these are skills you can actually learn, but you may just be using the wrong tools and have not had the practice necessary.
> So I would really appreciate a good AI/LLM tool that I can feed my sketch and parameters and it can save me hours of searching web and watching tutorials on how to extrude a circle over a curve
I think this is possible, but the ‘trick’ would be translating your instructions in English into some kind of language that the CAD software understands.
I’m on a bunch of 3D printing forums, and everyone tries to describe what the finished product would LOOK like. They end up making PICTURES when what they really want is a STL file.
Two dimensions are easier to visualize then three, so let’s put it this way:
If you wanted to turn “English” into “a 2D image that’s dimensionally accurate”, you’d want to translate from “English” to “SVG.”
SVG is dimensionally accurate. JPG isn’t. The file format itself has no concept of “dimensions” only “pixels.”
I've been having excellent success with prompts like "use cadquery and build x" for moderately simple stuff, like bearing clearance gauge for 3d prints. I don't like openscad because while it will technically produce .step , they don't import "clean" into fusion, etc the way step files produced by cadquery do
If you use something like OnShape or Fusion, you could easily get comfortable enough to model those parts in about a day. Once get the hang of it, you'll be amazed how fast you can work.
It will take much longer than a day for AI to get to this level, so there's not much to lose by just learning how to use the software now :)
Does it require core patches or I can install it into the standard upstream Postgres? Asking because, afaik, it did, but it might that something has changed already.
Interesting point of view, didn't know about Jevon's paradox before. To me, the outcome still depends on whether AI can get superhuman [1] (and beyond) at some point. If it can, then, well, we will likely indeed see that suitable-for-human areas of the intellectual labor are shrinking. If it cannot, then it becomes an even more philosophical question similar to the agnosticism beliefs. Is the universe completely knowable? Because if it's not, then we might as well have an infinite more hard problems, and AI just rises a bar for what we can achieve by paring a human with AI compared to just human alone.
[1] I know it's a bit hard to define, but I'd vaguely say that it's significantly better in the majority of intelligence areas than the vast majority of the population. Also it should be scalable. If we can make it slightly better than human by burning the entire Earth's energy, then it doesn't make much sense.
I'd totally agree with this point if we assume that efficiency/performance growth will flatten at some point. For example, if it gets logarithmic soon, then the progress will grow slowly over the next decades. And then, yes, it will likely look like that current software developers, engineers, scientists, etc., just got an enormously powerful tool, which knows many languages almost perfectly and _briefly_ knows the entire internet.
Yet, if we trust all these VC-backed AI startups and assume that it will continue growing rapidly, e.g., at least linearly, over the next years, I'm afraid that it may indeed reach a superhuman _intelligence_ level (let's say p99 or maybe even p999 of the population) in most of the areas. And then why do you need this top of the notch smart-ass human biologist if you can as well buy a few racks of TPUs?
Because only the biologist knows what assays to ask the super human intelligence for. And how the results affect the biomolecular process you want to look at.
If you can’t ask the right questions, like everyone without a phd in biology, you’re kind of out of luck. The superhuman intelligence will just spin forever trying to figure out what you’re talking about.
Love it. I do very occasional birdwatching, so I still don’t know most of the birds I meet. What I like about Bird ID is that when I see in binoculars a singing bird I can quickly identify it, check photos, and really confirm that it’s exactly that bird.
I’ve heard from more experienced birdwatchers that it can false identify in some cases, so I always try to confirm visually, but anyway, for my casual use it’s more than accurate enough.
The title and overall ‘take’ are very broad, it starts with
> It’s well known that video games today are disposable pieces of slop.
But then it falls mostly into multiplayer games. For the latter, I will probably agree that old multiplayer games were more decentralized and self-sufficient just because distribution was also less centralized back then.
Yet, overall, I tend to disagree because of several reasons:
1. Video games market is vastly larger than 20-30 years ago. That’s why we see more crappy games, but there many-many good games as well
2. Back then there were bad games as well. YouTube is full of videos where gamers walkthrough some old games. And many of even popular titles are literally a broken piece of crappy tech demo with broken mechanics, soft locks, bugs, etc.
3. Outside of MMMO, F2P and multiplayer there numerous great games nowadays. Indie developers are very strong. Games like Buldur’s Gate 3 have a non-imaginable quality and amount of content for 2000s game industry. It’s a matter of personal choice, but I can name dozens of titles for the past 10 years or so, that are really great.
So what does it mean in this particular case? The board and investors probably don’t see it being realistic to become profitable soon, and maybe even worry about AI ceiling, so they want to profit now