Yes. I read the article. You leave your car in a close and available garage so you don't have to search for a space. The robot takes your car and finds you a parking space to leave it.
What about my comment was wrong? At some point my dad gets to park his car in a garage close to the airport, a robot deals with it. At that point what does it matter if the space is 30 seconds from the garage or 5 miles?
Ifound Palmiers interface dense, cluttered, and confusing - just take the panel top left (to the right of chat) for example. So much going on in one small space.
Donkey Cut offers more functionality in less space, and everything is easy to find and understand. It isn't without bugs, but the structure is there for it to be great
> Donkey Vision — a screen-understanding API that turns any screenshot into structured, clickable UI, so you can build computer-use tools of your own.
Not faulting your (necessary given today's reality) work, but sad to think that the Amiga still remains ahead of it's time some 36 years later (since ARexx was bundle with the OS), or closer to 40 years if you count when v1 was released separately.
ARexx allowed any application that supported it (and most productivity apps worth their salt did) to communicate with each other, and to be scripted - essentially a standardised API for applications.
We're slowly getting there (at least for SaaS apps) with MCP, but screen scraping shouldn't ever have been necessary.
The big reason for manually constructing an ellipsis is to ensure consistent spacing for the 3 and 4 dot forms --- some typefaces will include both, but may not fit well if the type specs have the text set tight or loose.
My apologies, should I have typed \thinspace.\thinspace.\thinspace.\thinspace.?
The four dot ellipses is for use in quoted text, although how it's used (if at all) depends on the style guide. As you weren't quoting anyone but simply indicating an incomplete thought of your own, a three dot ellipses is the correct form.
Not sure if there's something wrong with the player, or if it's just me, but they both sound like noise. I guess the first sounds vaguely kick drum-like (but distorted), the second is just noise.
> ShadCN components have you copy the component code into your codebase, you own it
That’s a common misconception/myth/lie that doesn’t seem to want to go away even though Shadcn is more honest about it these days.
You don’t own the compenents, and you don’t copy the component code into your codebase. The components are Base UI (and previously Radix)
And they’re imported like any other.
What you’re copying is a thin styling wrapper, just the same as you can use to restyle “traditional” components.
The difference is that you have to provide all the styles, rather than just overrides, which can be both a blessing and a curse.
I think this is a misinterpretation. BaseUI provides baseline semantics that because the code is in your codebase you can choose to keep or remove. BaseUI is also actively unstyled/unopinionated, you use it to compose your own components, which again live in your codebase.
When you import shadcn components you can rebuild them however you want, thats the point.
I'm a big believer in guides. ShadCN provides great starting points for continued engineering as do other ShadCN libraries. For companies with the resources to, they do just start with BaseUI.
In the long run I think most UI will be BaseUI/RadixUI + Component and style guides, prompts, and traditional packages will no longer be relevant.
That seems a bit of non-argument. You can choose to keep or remove any components from your codebase, styled or unstyled, composable or monolithic.
What Shadcn gives you is a layer of abstraction that separates the underlying (imported) components from the code that consumes them, so you change your button in one place. It’s exactly how better frontend teams consume just about any component library, Base UI or otherwise.
Shadcn really is a bit of a nothing burger, or rather it’s a bit of soggy lettuce between the meat and the bun.
I live next to a railway line so I'm in the (not particularly unique, and definitely not enviable) position to compare what's on the map to "IRL" trains, and I can tell you it's as good as useless.
- Trains appearing on the map that aren't anywhere to be seen on the tracks.
- Trains on the tracks that don't appear on the map.
- Trains moving away from the station that according to the timetable view shouldn't have left the station yet.
- Trains on the map seemingly stopping and changing direction, only to reverse course once again.
The map shows a single line segment for what is in fact a multi-line stretch of railway. That's okay as a simplification (I guess), but the icons aren't pinned to the line, so appear to be driving off the track, or even on the adjacent street.
As for realtime - even if the data was accurate and timely, a 2Hz refresh rate most definitely isn't realtime.
Sorry if it seems like I'm shitting on it - it's a fun toy, but I wouldn't depend on it for anything important.
I'm also close enough to a railway line to see the trains. There are two lines near us - a fast line (that I can see) and a slow line on the other side of the estate. The map showed a train moving (quickly) on the slow line, at just about the time I saw it fly past out my window. So it isn't even accurate as to which line the train is on.
Possibly useful as a funky station arrival board, but overlaying that data on an actual map is a bit misleading.
There's no way its input data is anywhere near adequate for the rate the position indicators refresh, so it's taking some base data and then just... guessing the rest.
>it's a fun toy, but I wouldn't depend on it for anything important.
This could be said for the rail network as a whole.
Neglect and underinvestment over the last 60+ years has left it in a sorry state, and debacles such as HS2 show how government has no ability to deliver proper material upgrades to the ageing infrastructure and service. The direction of travel (scuse the pun) has been clear since the Beeching cuts: roads are the priority. Add to that Neoliberal divestment policies and we end up where we are today: overcrowded, filthy, ugly trains barely fit for cattle transport and chronically understaffed stations and train crews. Not to mention the extortionate prices for a ticket to travel on the network.
I adore rail travel, but dread the necessity of using it any time I go on a journey.
> I don't want to consume "art" that has been generated out the distillation of stealing all of the world's current art
It seems that you've fundamentally misunderstood art. I wouldn't personally call it "stealing", but T.S. Eliot would beg to differ (as would Pablo Picasso who "stole" that line)
> I want to read something that has intent. That has a purpose. A reason why it exists.
If the "allegories for the LLM condition" angle is accurate, then these stories do. In which case I believe what you mean to say is that you want to read something that has human intent.
Are you claiming that LLMs have an intent beyond producing the statistically most "correct" output? This sounds a bit like you are saying LLMs are conscious.
> producing the statistically most "correct" output
That isn't quite how they work - there's a degree of randomness depending on so called "temperature". And it isn't the output that's statistically modelled, it's the next token based on the prior output.
> This sounds a bit like you are saying LLMs are conscious
No more so than OP is implicitly asserting that human art is produced in cleanroom isolation. I don't believe either to be true.
> It's terrible and you'll find out quite fast you're not interested in everyone's background and scream to most NPC's to shut the fuck up and get to the point.
Many of the interactions in RDR2 are quite mundane, and despite thousands of hours of (high quality) voice acting, it can become quite repetitive.
I could very much see those micro-interactions being LLM generated, but the TTS would need to be a step above where even the best models are now to come close to RDR2s production quality.
The repetitiveness in video game dialogues is a feature, not a bug. Amongst other things, it allows you to re-retrieve information and hone in faster on what’s story and what’s relevant progression. Having each character invent their own inconsistent sloppy backstory whenever you talk to them is not a positive, it’s not good immersion when every character is a chatbot that can inadvertently give you story beats you shouldn’t be aware of yet or you missed some crucial bit of information but no one talks about it anymore (or worse, never did). In that world, those games would be made popular by people breaking the LLMs in funny ways, not the gameplay itself.
I don't think it can give you story beats you shouldn't be aware of yet. Those beats wouldn't be fed into the prompt until the event happens. LLM can't spit out what it doesn't know.
It might indeed fail to reveal something it should but even that i think is unlikely if the harness steers it hard enough.
I think it could be fun. If you're always given 4 choices of what you can ask the NPC then your choices can be too obvious. If its open ended then you have to think a little what to say and ask.
What "context"? If it's coming from the player's input, then the LLM isn't spoiling anything.
e.g. let's say an important character dies in your game but that hasn't happened yet in this point in the story. You're talking to some NPC. That NPC can't possibly spoil that that character is going to die because the developer wouldn't feed that in as context. The NPC doesn't "know" the character is going to die. You, as the player, might be able to convince the NPC that that will happen and it might respond accordingly, but it won't just randomly divulge that by accident.
This one is a fair point... if all the characters have distinctive names then NPC can plausibly become aware that it is a character in that game and spoil things. I don't know how to stop that, short of training a clean model from scratch, but that seems a bit much for a game.
> it’s not good immersion when every character is a chatbot that can inadvertently give you story beats you shouldn’t be aware of yet or you missed some crucial bit of information but no one talks about it anymore
What you're describing isn't bad dialog, it's bad interaction design.
I think your mental model might be of a single session with zero state, and no bounds on topics of conversation outside of the character's backstory. That isn't close to how this would work. A little understanding of how the game currently operates and some imagination, and you'll see how it could be improved further without degrading gameplay.
> those games would be made popular by people breaking the LLMs in funny ways
Because making the game do funny things didn't happen with RDR2, or any other game, device, or indeed humans (there are whole genre built around making people do or say "funny" things).
Perhaps try to steel man the argument. Your entire response is just one large condescendingly wrong straw man.
> What you're describing isn't bad dialog, it's bad interaction design.
I didn’t say it was bad dialogue. It should be pretty obvious that’s not the argument since I talked in terms of feature VS bug.
> Because making the game do funny things didn't happen with RDR2, or any other game, device, or indeed humans
Again, not at all what was said. Of course those things happen, and of course I know that. The clue is in the fact that I brought it up, which can be ascertained by reading the comment and engaging with it in good faith. The point was that becoming the focus.
I don't think that's true at all. Capnography, the measure of carbon dioxide partial pressure is wholly separate from pulseox:
> Pulse oximeters have some limitations. They can only employ light at two wavelengths. Thus the devices can only distinguish between hemoglobin and oxygenated hemoglobin. When carboxyhemoglobin and methemoglobin are also present, there are two additional wavelengths required for differentiation. In the presence of elevated carboxyhemoglobin levels, pulse oximetry overestimates the true saturation of oxygen as carboxyhemoglobin binds with a higher affinity than oxygen. In the case of carbon monoxide poisoning, the absorbance spectrum of carbon monoxide is very similar to hemoglobin, which results in a falsely high level of oxygen (overestimation of oxygen saturation) ...
I don't think that's safe to assume at all, for two reasons:
1. CO2 has effects on the human body of its own that aren't simply a lack of oxygen, and vice-versa. [0]
2. The baseline proportions involved aren't close, so even doubling CO2 isn't going to show up easily as a large swing in in oxygen%.
For example, the article references a study where the CO2 proportion going from 0.04% -to 0.25% correlates to mental problems.
Even if the watch could sample atmosphere directly, is it sensitive enough to detect a shift from 21.00% -> 20.79% oxygen?
As it's estimating oxygen in the owner's blood, it might not detect anything different at all... not if the owner's body has already compensated by breathing harder or by "underclocking" their brain to make dumber decisions.
> The article references a study where the CO2 proportion going from 0.04% -to 0.25% causes mental problems. In other words, a difference in 0.21% of the air.
I'm finding that pretty difficult to believe, to be quite honest with you.
And before you say "aha, carbon dioxide brain fog!" consider that I'm about a mile from the sea with a 40mph onshore breeze. This air is about as oxygenated as it gets.
It makes a lot of sense actually. You get severe symptoms when CO2 makes up only a couple % of the air. And can become fatal at like 5%. There’s not like a hard line where you suddenly die, it’s a gradual thing. It very much makes sense that we’d notice minor symptoms at a few thousand PPM when it only takes like ten thousand to feel it severely.
I got a monitor as we had an old apartment with bad ventilation. When I started feeling it I would check and it was always around 1200ppm and would open a window for a bit. Outside air is around 420ppm, but that's not the problem, enclosed and badly ventilated rooms are if you spend a few hours in there.
The air in your lungs sits around 40,000ppm or 4% carbon dioxide.
In every breath you remove about 25% of the oxygen from the air in your lungs, which is why mouth-to-mouth resuscitation works, at all. Most of the oxygen is still in there.
To be clear, that 25% represents a change in oxygen level from around 21% to around 16%, so the few tenths of a percent change in carbon dioxide just isn't a huge amount.
I really must learn to quote the full context of a reply. OP said:
> just due to lower oxygen levels in your blood
So my comment is in response to that.
PS. The downvote button isn't a disagree button. (Although how you can disagree with the fact that Apple watches have a blood oxygen sensor I don't know).
reply