You should distinguish between residents and visitors. In Belgium, and I believe in many other European cities, street parking for residents is extremely cheap or free.
I'd argue that LLMs are not yet capable of the last step, and because most sufficiently large AI-generated codebase are an unmaintainable mess, it's also very hard for a human developer to take over and go the last mile.
So what is the “last step”? I have one shotted a complete AWS CDK app to create infrastructure on an empty AWS account and deploy everything - networking, VPC endpoints, Docker based lambdas, databases, logging, monitoring alerts etc.
Yes I know AWS well and was detailed about the requirements z
God yes. For some reason, I automatically scroll in such a way that I always keep what I'm reading at the very top of the screen. Which means that every time I want to reread a sentence I first have to scroll past the header.
I'm building web-based CAD software for woodworkers. Not a plugin, I'm starting from scratch. I'm aiming for it to be intuitive for non-technical users (think SketchUp), while also offering some of the more powerful tools of "proper" CAD tailored for woodworking: simple parametric workflows, cutting layout optimization, built-in tools like chamfers and joints,...
If you are using webpack, see if you can make the switch to turbopack. It cut my build times from ~1 minute to 15 seconds, incremental builds are down from 10 seconds to 2. Memory usage is down a ton as well. But if you rely on webpack plugins this may not be an option for you.
I've been pushing our apps at work in this direction and it's definitely worth it.
If you're relying on webpack plugins heavily, I'd consider that a liability either way. It's going to seriously hamper your portability to other frameworks and build tools and even new versions of the current ones.
You can easily run turbopack for development / preview environments and webpack for production(-like) ones btw. as long as you don't rely on custom magic.
For me, the answer to this question is: parts that involve no architectural decisions, and that won't need to be extended or built upon significantly in the future.
When I'm working on a greenfield project that I intend to build out further (which is what I am currently doing), I find that there's not a lot of work that fits those criteria. I expect that can change drastically when you're working on something that is either more mature, or more narrowly scoped (and thus won't need to be extended too much, meaning poor architectural decisions are not a big issue).
I had to do a fresh install on a 2015 iMac. Same problems with the SSL certificates. I found it rather shocking that a 10 year old computer cannot be booted anymore, and as far as I understand it it's mostly because apple chooses to serve certificates with poor backwards compatibility on a domain that is used for updates, which is just lazy.
I think OP may be referring to the idea that the total number of calories burned in a day doesn't meaningfully change under a workout regime. Working out does burn calories, but after a few session your body starts to compensate by burning less calories in other areas (e.g. immune and reproductive system). The net result is close to zero, except in very demanding workout regimes.
I don't have the background to fully evaluate how true that is. I read "Burn" by Herman Pontzer, which at least makes a very good case for it.
I seems like it's only part of the story. If you increase exercise but also increase calorific input to match then you won't lose weight. But, the laws of energy conservation being what they are, I don't think anyone disputes that if you very significantly increase exercise but also maintain calorific input then you will lose weight as the energy must come from somewhere and there are only so many optimisations your body can make. You could of course maintain exercise levels and reduce calorific input for a similar effect, ignoring health benefits of exercise. Take an extreme case, Michael Phelps. He used to eat 12,000 cal a day because of the hours he spent swimming. Certainly not a small guy but pretty lean! So I'm totally prepared to accept there are bounds to all these statements but I still think I couldn't finish an 800 cal sandwich for lunch hehehe.
By the way, I feel the Wikipedia page there uses a lot of words suggesting that the paradox isn't at all fully understood and that there could be compensating mechanisms we aren't aware of. But I'm not in a position to dig deeper.
> I don't think anyone disputes that if you very significantly increase exercise but also maintain calorific input then you will lose weight
This is exactly what is disputed by the link you posted. They measured directly the energy expenditure (the number of calories burned by respiration) in a high-activity hunter-gatherer tribe, and in relatively low-activity industrialized societies, and found they were almost the same. So the number of calories the people consumed was not measured or relevant (and must also have been roughly the same if neither group was actively gaining weight).
Not quite, imho. The language used here is subtle and I could be clearer myself. It talks about the paradox that suggests the work _appears_ to come from nowhere, which we should all agree is impossible, thus a paradox, not that it does actually come from nowhere. Just that we don't know exactly where. The page doesn't offer an explanation for the appearance of the paradox.
For me the line "The studies suggest that controlling caloric intake may be more necessary for managing weight than exercise alone." is a possible conclusion for the apparent paradox. Note the words "may" and "alone" which indicate uncertainty. I deliberately used the phrase "very significantly" to suggest we would probably all agree that there is some bound on observing the paradox which is why I used Phelps as an example. To repeat and be clear, I think the paradox as described on the page does not say that with a very significant increase in energy expenditure there will be no weight loss with a constant calorific intake.
I guess when you say "work" you mean precisely mechanical work. If so, I don't think it is implied anywhere that the work "comes from nowhere". If a person is doing mechanical work then that work must come from respiration, ultimately. There is nowhere else for it to come from. If a person does 2000 calories of mechanical work and consumes 2000 calories of energy then there is nothing left over for anything else, and they would lose weight one way or another. But this is much more extreme than what was observed, or what happens when a person ordinarily does exercise.
The "Energy paradox" is not a logical paradox at all. It is just a confusing fact. The observed fact was that two different groups with apparently very different activity levels respire almost exactly the same amount. In other words, that an increased, but not necessarily extreme, level of mechanical work does not appear to correlate with an increased level of calorie burn. Not just that the relationship is non-linear, that the relationship does not seem to exist at all (at the measured level of exercise).
I was very careful with my words this time, hopefully there is no more misunderstanding. I think we still disagree unless by "very significantly increase exercise" you mean something like running multiple hours per day every day.
And also that the calorimetry from wearables is highly flawed and it seems to that we don't have super accurate data and what sort of activities burn the most energy.
I am also a big opponent of folks that start equating the "my wearable shows that i burned 300 kcal with that activity so it zero outs that sweet thing I ate earlier that was also 300 kcal" which is wrong on so many reasons but with a lot of workout apps and devices pushing the (inaccurate) kcal count front and center becomes more and more a of a thing.
It seems like LLMs in general still have a very hard time with the concepts of "doubt" and "uncertainty". In the early days this was very visible in the form of hallucinations, but it feels like they fixed that mostly by having better internal fact-checking. The underlying problem of treating assumptions as truth is still there, just hidden better.
LLMs are basically improv theater. If the agent starts out with a wildly wrong assumption it will try to stick to it and adapt it rather than starting over. It can only do "yes and", never "actually nevermind, let me try something else".
I once had an agent come up with what seemed like a pointlessly convoluted solution as it tried to fit its initial approach (likely sourced from framework documentation overemphasizing the importance of doing it "the <framework> way" when possible) to a problem for which it to me didn't really seem like a good fit. It kept reassuring me that this was the way to go and my concerns were invalid.
When I described the solution and the original problem to another agent running the same model, it would instantly dismiss it and point out the same concerns I had raised - and it would insist on those being deal breakers the same way the other agent had dimissed them as invalid.
In the past I've often found LLMs to be extremely opinionated while also flipping their positions on a dime once met with any doubt or resistance. It feels like I'm now seeing the opposite: the LLM just running with whatever it picked up first from the initial prompt and then being extremely stubborn and insisting on rationalizing its choice no matter how much time it wastes trying to make it work. It's sometimes better to start a conversation over than to try and steer it in the right direction at that point.
reply