Did you remove your earlier post from two or three days ago? https://programming.dev/post/43579392
I posted a comment there, but looks like what I was asking about is no longer part of the post or repo readme this time around.
While trying to determine whether this is that I noticed you wrote “566 pages of theory” but then 573-page manuscript. I assume it became more pages, or are they different things?
Without understanding how it’s built, how do I know if there’s duplication, dead code, or poor patterns? I used to obsess over this. Now I’m less worried that a human needs to read the code, because I’m genuinely not sure that they do.
What you do need: simple entry points, explicit code with fewer abstractions, minimal coupling, and linear control flow.
Seems to be the common simple standard software works well fallacy.
By “can replace developers”, what do they mean? They don't clarify, only talk about their three success projects.
We've seen studies of the issues and risks, and discrepancy between user perception and more factual gains. And this post certainly seems like they're not experienced in or thinking of development and maintenance that goes beyond simple standard integration software. Which doesn't make it too surprising they're not concerned about security for those simpler projects either.
I've been using GNU Cash for many years.
The UI is kinda bad, way too complex, and the banking API integration is cumbersome and lacking.
That's all negatives, and it sounds pretty bad, but it's still my banking app.
Modern websites no longer fit the document-centric model HTML was created for. A typical news homepage mixes headlines, images, teasers, and interactive elements in ways the original spec never anticipated. The New York Times even present teasers without headlines at all. This diversity shows how little shared foundation there is for developers today – and why HTML needs a broader, more coordinated evolution beyond isolated improvements.
Aren't such cases already covered? I don't see the issue or alternative.
🎨 Theming dark-mode compatible
😵 quite the white border it has there
scrolling is also quite limited to only the content area
if the software developer had experience with AI
Did these developers not have experience with AI?
and were to start on a new project, without any existing context
I'm not sure focusing on one aspect to scope a reasonable and doable study automatically makes it “really low effort”.
If they were to test a range of project types, it'd have to be a much bigger study.
Before starting tasks, developers forecast that allowing AI will reduce completion time by 24%. After completing the study, developers estimate that allowing AI reduced completion time by 20%. Surprisingly, we find that allowing AI actually increases completion time by 19%--AI tooling slowed developers down.
The gap and miss is insane.
Nodes only know their neighbors.
When this makes me think of gravity and how that propagades huge distances (if not endlessly until practically ignorable), would that be correct or wrong for this aspect?
What does 'neighbors' mean in this context? Is it meant as something more local, constrained, or scoped towards local physical locality?
The article isn't very concrete on what the substance of this Anyway System is.
The FAQ answered my question though, and it seems mostly about dynamic management of PCs as execution nodes.
I assume that means I could run the model on one of those PCs as well, despite the article claiming you can use as few as four PCs? Or does this system somehow distribute a single model prompt process into multiple execution pipelines?