EzTerry

I see “gold rush” the company selling shovels is making out like a bandit, everyone else is make a profit on the previous gen but requires a 10x cost increase for the next gen. And thus 10x more shovels… As soon as 10x more shovels stops giving 10x+ improvements this is the wrong investment.

Hints are we already reached this point.

Some AI companies will pivot and improve in other ways with more linear costs/results… The ones hoping the line continues to the moon… I think they overshot… I just don’t know when it will fall back…

This is the biggest problem wifh genai, it takes over the meaning of any other AI… At most theis hearing aid “AI” is a small neural network to remove background (noise) vs foreground (talk), more likely it’s not even that complicated but still focused on nearest conversation and not other noise.

While I’ve found uses for local LLMs (ie I host) and even the bigger chat bots:

I feel the gen “AI” everywhere is just an excuse to collect data since they always use the online models… And if you are either not paying or paying api rates (per token… Or usually million token rate) it’s basically being provided significantly below cost.

Anything you can do in Jujitsu you can do in git… The big difference is a paradime change:

-instead of a working directory that has pending changes you need to add than commit, all changes are in a commit that is lacking metadata.

The system has better “editing” of local history to set that meta data. But once you push to a shared repo you run the usual risks of force pushing.

I’m not sold, rather git not do anything until asked and just run git status constantly but I don’t have first hand experience… I would theory it would be more likely to add a file you didn’t mean to… Unlike those who use windows guis for git and forget to add new files.

Funny those are commands I avoid… They all have to do with editing history which I know there is a vocal group here that loves “clean” history but that isn’t what happened.

sure merge full features so you can roll back a feature… And if something is really off I might start from a snapshot commit and cherry pick/merge a bunch in but usually history is histoy… If submitting to a public project I may make a new branch with the cleaned version but why edit in line. That is risking issues.

I am perfectly ok with android apps being required to be signed by not just a certificate (they always were just it could be self signed and just needed to match to upgrade without removing data) but a list of trusted entities.

As long as:

• I can install my own key on my phone (I’d I am trusted)
• major distributors like fdroid and have a key installed without friction (like web CAs)
• Google let’s me mark their key as untrusted (I probably won’t but I should be able to refuse things they trust (at install time, not disabling preloaded apps like settings)

Without this it feels too much extending the monopoly despite being forced to allow 3rd party stores.