Is there a way to use your Claude Max plan? I checked my token usage (ccusage) if I wasn't on a plan, and last month it would have been over $2000. This constraint prevents me from realistically considering alternatives to Claude Code.
The problem is the training corpus tends towards mediocre code. But with an agentic loop that analyzes the code against those criteria and suggests changes then I think it might be possible. I wouldn't try to get it to generate that right off the bat.
I wonder how many of these rules can be incorporated into a linter or be evaluated by an LLM in an agentic feedback loop. It would be nice to encourage code to be more like this.
I notice you didn't really talk much about types. When I think of proofs in code my mind goes straight to types because they literally are proofs. Richer typed languages move even more in that direction.
One caveat I would add is it is not always desirable to be forced to think through every little scenario and detail. Sometimes it's better to ship faster than write 100% sound code.
And as an industry, as much as I hate it, the preference is for languages and code that is extremely imperative and brittle. Very few companies want to be writing code in Idris or Haskell on a daily basis.
I've seen DISC and Kolbe used at companies I have been at. I've learned that I have a low tolerance for structure and work best on large projects with lots of unknowns and autonomy. Explains why I've always preferred startups over larger companies. Seems like few companies can accommodate ADHD people. It's a shame because once I'm focused and interested in a project I do incredible work. But the daily standup, pick something off the queue, weekly sprints don't seem to be the environment I thrive under. Ask me to build a big system or service and I can come back in a month and deliver something incredible.
Can relate to the ADHD bit and ditto on environments that are best for personal productivity. I started at a big bank, moved to a VC fund, then an early stage startup and now work as an independent consultant for a non profit now. With each move, as autonomy increased and incentives were more aligned, I found myself producing a lot more. A large part of it is that I was able to also find work that was interesting but I think the bigger factor was autonomy, alignment of incentives and whether I was judged on metrics that correspond to my strengths. It's not even like i have an inifnitely high risk appetite but for personality reasons, I've resigned myself to the fact that if i want to succeed, I have to pursue almost complete autonomy and thus expose myself to broader variance.
My hot take is that at some level, ADHD is indistinguishable from low conscientiousness - forgetting appointments, meetings, calls etc. More precisely, ADHD seems negatively correlated with the orderliness facet of conscientiousness but orthogonal to industriousness. If you're high on industriousness and low on orderliness, you sort of have no choice but to be your own boss.
Yes, ADHD definitely seems to correlate with high openness and low conscientiousness. I've also found most self-help and productivity advice to be useless.
A lot of these social media promotions work by having people with high follower counts blast you out and try to get their followers to follow you.
The problem is that it is not an audience that would normally be interested in or engage in your content naturally. There are often artificial incentives to follow or engage in someone's content. Often there is some kind of prize giveaway from a "celebrity", that you have to follow everyone on a list to qualify. That celebrity then gets paid to blast out the promotion.
Then after the promotion all of a sudden your massive number of new followers aren't engaging with your content anymore. What are the algorithms going to assume now? Naturally that your content is no longer any good.
It's common for influencers to share screenshots of their analytics or publish them on their websites for people looking for influencers. While the numbers might look impressive, unfortunately, due to how the algorithms work -- mainly things like vector embeddings and placing influencers in a some high dimensional space, the algorithms no longer target and recommend your content to an audience that would be interested.
It used to be that brands would look at your follower count and see how many likes / comments you were getting, but even this is faked now. As your engagement (likes / comments as a percentage of your followers) goes down, they are sometimes artificially propped up by purchasing likes and comments. This worsens your engagement and leads to an endless downward cycle.
While someone might survive for a short while as an influencer using these black hat strategies, brands will be unlikely to use you again if they have not seen tangible results.
Also, if you intend to sell a product or have a certain ideal customer avatar you are trying to market to, it makes sense to do as much as you can to get engagement from that (and only that) demographic.
Follower counts might look impressive on the surface but what ultimately matters is whether you see conversions for your business / brand.
Also, I really wish social media platforms provided better tools and didn't have policies that penalized you for deleting followers that are bots or junk followers.
As a Las Vegas photographer that works primarily with models, I often have random profiles blasting out my work. These profiles mostly find sexy content and blast it out in hopes of growing their own profiles. This mostly resulted in my followers being 95% men from outside the US. This does absolutely nothing for increasing my engagement with my actual target audience (female models or would be models in the Las Vegas metro area wanting to book photoshoots).
Unfortunately Instagram penalizes you and has actually removed the search functionality from my follower list because I was using it to delete bots and junk followers. They won't say this officially but their support ignores my requests for why this functionality no longer works.
Bot accounts prop up their KPIs and they directly provide revenue. They have clear incentives to allow such bots and junk accounts to thrive on their platform.
It sucks how everything became a trick. Everything is a game and almost everyone is trying to find a way to cheat legally. Result is that all these influencers end up being liars and cheaters because no honest person can compete in such environment.
So then the next generation ends up being essentially raised by cheaters and liars. This is who their heroes are. Worse, they get used to the aesthetics of the cheaters and lose appreciation for honesty. They might perceive plain honesty as cringeworthy or awkward. Literally, they will grow up to feel uncomfortable with the truth. I've met many people like that but it's going to get worse.
I say this a lot in the context of reliability engineering, but it's moreso something I've learned from life. Any sufficiently complex system has rules which means they have incentives (and disincentives!), any system with sufficiently complex rules is a game. You can either craft the game in such a way that the 99% do what you want and the outliers are intentionally marginalized or you can let the 1% run the show according to the meta rules your incentives taught them and make everyone else observers. Social media is the story of the latter.
Great observation. That's why I think rules and structures should be kept simple and minimal. The economy isn't supposed to be a game because people's lives are at stake. Social media algorithms are now an integral part of the economy so their complexity and obscurity poses a significant problem.
I'm not sure a simple system is better. Distributed systems, even people systems, are necessarily complex. Making them simpler does not correlate to better.
The harder work is teaching people who craft systems to think deeply about the relationships and possibilities among the weights of incentives and disincentives. Think, balancing scales rather than questioning the quantity of what's on the scales as a first principle.
We can't simply act like social platforms and apps aren't the primary enablers and profiteers in this ecosystem. Instead of hiring honest tech visionaries, they hire social psychologists to design features that waste time and work like slot machines, while giving little value to users just trying to earn a living or make a name for themselves. These platforms also have no incentive to help anyone to succeed naturally/organically because they also conflictingly sell ad space.
Everything about most modern social media is phony, they even ratio criticism and brigade against truth about their schemes and negative news both on and off their own platforms.
Even Elon spent 44 Billion to dominate the attention game and it didn't work out well for him. There simply can't be a monopoly on attention, but tech is always trying to make it happen in the most underhanded ways, and then turning to profiting from deception when they can't keep it together.
Universal Studios gave me the keys to a Facebook page for a hugely famous movie that had 2,000,000 followers (this was 2012). I had a fan page for the same movie with 30,000 followers.
Whatever I posted to both pages, my fan page would get 10X the engagement and 10X the sales of merch than the bigger page.
It taught me a big lesson on numbers v. engagement.
I've worked at Silicon Valley startups that were that way. I remember thinking this is really odd how high the concentration was (probably about 70% Indian). Didn't really bother me because it was a great team and honestly one of the best companies I worked at.
It didn't really seem like they discriminated in hiring and I never felt discriminated against at work. It was just that coworkers referred people they already knew.
Some people will hit each other up for paid references. The guy doing the referral can get paid by the new hire and the company. Idk what threshold of acquaintance is enough for a referral, but the worst things you can imagine have been done and are even routine in some places.
I'm sure that is also true. But I know the other thing happens too. I've heard about it and read it. Some Indians even asked me for a referral, as a stranger.
Referrals are encouraged by internal recruiters in most companies...and they incentivize it with a few thousand dollars for a successful hire. Why are you making it sound so nefarious?
It's normal for companies to pay for referrals based on personal familiarity, but not for candidates to pay for fake recommendations. Outside of a fully disclosed consultancy-type arrangement, it is unacceptable for the candidate to pay anything to the referrer.
- The programmer's tool should be a tool for manipulating an annotated AST (not text)
- There should be many different types of UX's for different scenarios, each maps to and from an AST in a UX that is optimal for the developer for that scenario
- We must be conscious of human brain limitations and cognitive psychology and work within those constraints
- "Reading" and "Writing" code should have different UX's because they are radically different use cases
- Use RPN. It models the real world. Humans are designed to manipulate their environment in an incremental manner seeing the result each step of the way. When we have to plan out and write code for an extended period of time, trying to play compiler in our head, we overload our brain unnecessarily and highly likely to make simple mistakes.
- Testing should be a first class citizen in the developer experience and indeed baked into how we develop at a fundamental level that it seems strange that they are even decoupled to begin with.
The damage is already done. I was doing a photoshoot at my house with 2 models that have OnlyFans accounts. When the news hit they literally signed up for other platforms within an hour.
The other platforms are capitalizing on the news and finding ways to make migration to their platform as easy as possible.
Every OF model has her own link in social media profile. They do marking via Instagram, Twitter, Reddit etc. It seems like the OF “community” doesn’t matter.
It matters because that's where their customers have accounts and presumably they don't wish to make a new account for each new person they want to follow.
I think they may stick around because it has the user base and why not, they are already making money so no point giving that up.
But now models will diversify across multiple platforms because the writing is on the wall. They may lose their income at any point so they are going to have backups.
People will forget this ever happened in a couple weeks. By then, they'll be angry about something new.
The old models won't use new platforms because it's so much easier to just stay on OnlyFans. They already chose the easiest career path with the most short-term gain, I don't see how they're suddenly going to start thinking long-term. I don't think these people think long-term at all, if they did they probably wouldn't do this.
Soon enough, new models will be joining without any knowledge that this ever happened. It'll get memory-holed in weeks.
People will forget this ever happened in a couple weeks. By then, they'll be angry about something new.
Big true. The adult content creator community is famous for this.
The old models won't use new platforms because it's so much easier to just stay on OnlyFans.
After building content and following there for multiple years, it would be stupid to think that a majority of them would follow to new platforms. A lot of subscribers are not interested in giving their CC information to new platforms all willynilly.
Soon enough, new models will be joining without any knowledge that this ever happened. It'll get memory-holed in weeks.
And Onlyfans will continue to be the biggest and most well known name in adult content platforms, making it the most profitable site for content creators to use.
I doubt it. With all this PR and every boomer on the planet now knowing exactly what OnlyFans is... their user base will explode, and models will come right back.
They couldn't have hoped for more free marketing if they tried... genius.
Somehow there is this meme that porn sites are technically impressive due to their scale/small video playback enhancements, neglecting that they have a slightly more captive audience that will forgive small hitches than most streaming video providers.
Having worked at a porn site and a FAANG, I’d say my porn work was more impressive — because payment processors / ad providers / hosting companies / etc are so anti-adult-content, getting anything done is a lot harder.
