Uehreka
Socials: - x.com/uehreka - github.com/chrisuehlinger
---
đź“… Joined in 2014
🔼 7,357 Karma
✍️ 1,262 posts
Load more
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
When these cynical takes were crafted, Angular, AngularJS, Aurelia, Backbone, Ember, Knockout, React and Vue were all competing for mindshare, with new members joining/leaving that group every month (anyone remember OJ.js and Google FOAM?) being compiled by traceur, 6to5, the Google Closure Compiler and others from (Iced) CoffeeScript, TypeScript, ES6, Atscript, Livescript and Closurescript. We had two fucking major package registries (npm and bower) for literally no reason and we’d use both in every project. We had like 4 ways of doing modules.
Today the stack has stabilized around React and Vue, with a couple perennial challengers like Suede in the background. Vite and Webpack have been the two main build toolchains for years now. We discarded all of those languages except for TypeScript (and new ES features if you want them, but there are fewer changes every year). There are a couple package management tools, but they’re cross-compatible-ish and all pull from the same registry.
So does the fact that it’s not NEARLY as bad as it was in 2015 mean that people in 2025 aren’t allowed to complain? Yes. Yes it does.
(Replying to PARENT post)
OK cool, me neither.
> An anecdotal example: I asked the reasoning LLM a question, and it laid out the correct answer in its thinking step, only to stop thinking and confidently give the wrong answer.
I work with Claude Code in reasoning mode every day. I’ve seen it do foolish things, but never that. I totally believe that happened to you though. My first question would be which model/version were you using, I wonder if models with certain architectures or training regimens are more prone to this type of thing.
> That moment led me to conclude that when LLM evangelists talk about reasoning and thinking, they are essentially bullshitting.
Oh, come on.
People need to stop getting so hung up on the words “thinking” and “reasoning”. Call it “verbose mode” or whatever if it makes you feel better. The point is that these modes (whatever you want to call them) have generally (not always, but generally) resulted in better performance and have interesting characteristics.
(Replying to PARENT post)
As it should be. I’m tired of dumb roughnecks attending a 6-week course and then getting the ability to legally beat people up. It should be difficult to become a police officer, we should hold them to a high standard, especially if we’re gonna pay them so much.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Yell at me all you want about how “LLMs don’t think”, if a mental model is useful, I’m gonna use it.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
All that to say: you and Duolingo’s owners may disagree about what “the point of Duolingo is”. I don’t think they care if users are achieving fluency, they want users to keep coming back to the app so they can be served ads.
And yeah, that doesn’t mean users can’t take initiative and build a better habit-based approach that incorporates Duolingo, but that’s not what the app is pushing you to do.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
I’ve been stuck on 22.04 for almost the entire 24.04 cycle at this point, and I occasionally have weird display issues or other bugs that I know are not going to get fixed.
At this point my hope is that Cosmic may be stable enough to release as 26.04, since from what I’ve been hearing it sounds like the beta still has a lot of rough edges.
I think I would be a lot less salty if they’d just explicitly called a mulligan on 24.04 back in early or mid 2024. I could’ve made an informed decision to switch to an Ubuntu flavor with slightly rockier Nvidia drivers support while I waited until 26.04 to rejoin Pop OS. But instead they just kept drip feeding PR updates saying that it was “coming soon!”, even though it was probably clear to folks working on it that they were over a year away.
Edit: To explain why I think it was clear to folks working on the project: I recently went back to look at the Alpha announcements from late last year. I wasn’t going to run an Alpha, so I didn’t read them in depth, but in those announcements they announce that they are BEGINNING work on a media player, which was available in a WIP state in the Alpha. If they were BEGINNING work on the media player in late 2024, then they probably could’ve said in April 2024 (when they hadn’t even started on it) that this was going to take at least another year.
(Replying to PARENT post)
> What we consider before using anonymous sources:
> How do they know the information?
> What’s their motivation for telling us?
> Have they proved reliable in the past?
> Can we corroborate the information they provide?
> Because using anonymous sources puts great strain on our most valuable asset: our readers’ trust, the reporter and at least one editor is required to know the identity of the source. A senior newsroom editor must also approve the use of the information the source provides.
Is there a particular change you’re proposing?
(Replying to PARENT post)
> Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. Wall Street did not approve of this position, but Jobs wasn’t one to listen to anybody, so it did not matter.
(Head spins) wait what?! No! You’re not supposed to do that! If you fail to always maximize short term profits, people might start thinking CEOs actually have agency, and they won’t be able to hide behind the “maximizing shareholder value” excuse!