I tend to agree, assuming there are no false positives. Admittedly, I’m not sure how often that occurs, nor if we even can know that based on all the various work environments the cheap table saws are being used in today.
> the animation and the scroll-sensitive layout (vs. just having a series of static diagrams) makes it unpleasant for me to read.
I totally agree; I don't understand the fascination HN has with these types of sites. It all feels like extraneous design just for the sake of it, rather than actually making anything easier or better to understand.
I think sites/pages like this hold an important role, presenting information to people who have trouble visualizing concepts or need visual aid to better assimilate information is important and sometimes, a simple 2D rendering or a dry graph just isn't enough.
And if you need a 3d graph, you're only a handful of lines away from smoothing out your presentation, so why not?
There's also the more subjective aspect, I think adding the effort to make something look nice and slick, animated well, could be both an interesting challenge and a relaxing pass-time. It's pleasing both to make and digest, in a way, it sits in an intersection of design, art and technique and as an added bonus, could help capture the attention of someone who struggles with short attention spans even better!
> Simples being you need to log in to multiple different apps, but things like data moving between them etc are also complications.
I don't think this is actually true. Specifically, once I've logged into one Google app (like Gmail), others automatically pick up the user (like Calendar), so it seems to at least be technically possible.
> "See here, it says that only 10% of customer devices are on OS version 10.1 and below. We must bump our minimum version to 10.2 because us developers are tired of supporting this old shit and legacy code paths!"
This makes sense if that 10% are costing more money than they generate, which seems especially likely since people that are frugal enough to (for example) hang onto an iPhone 7 are also unlikely to spend much on other frivolous purchases.
Supporting those older devices can range from supporting multiple code paths due to different APIs, or fallbacks for missing HW performance and/or features. All of that adds up in terms of developer time, build/infra cost, etc.
Do you have any real estimate of what not breaking old devices cost? With so much effort being wasted on site/app redesigns that degrade user experience (and cut off old devices in the process) it's also easy to imagine that it's not about the costs
> My own anecdotal experience is that dozens of non-tech friends, coworkers, etc. tell me that they are using ChatGPT every day. These are people who are telling me how they use it to draft emails, create marketing material, create sales support material, create education material, etc.
My reaction when I hear this is that those people are being paid entirely too much money if an LLM can do their job. I think this is where the real economic impact will come from: when managers realize it's just LLMs generating emails to be summarized by LLMs and it's just bots spamming each other with busy work all day. At some point companies will realize it's all pointless and start trimming these pointless jobs, leaving a lot of people without any actual skills.
> My reaction when I hear this is that those people are being paid entirely too much money if an LLM can do their job.
That feels like such an unnecessarily cynical view to me. First, parent comment didn't say they are using LLMs to "do their jobs". Frankly, I feel that if you're a knowledge worker and aren't using LLMs at least part of the time, you're likely being inefficient. E.g. LLMs don't replace my skill as a software developer, but they sure make it faster to learn new libraries/technologies faster.
I often experience ChatGPT given outdated information which is wrong at this time, but wasn't necessarily wrong in the past. One big example is a popular framework for Laravel called Filament [0] which released a V3 a few weeks ago. I don't even bother anymore with it because it is useless. However, for example 90% of my DevOps tasks (mostly Kubernetes) are partially done with Kubernetes, either explaining impact or even writing manifests. It is genuinely awesome for that.
FWIW I've had the exact opposite experience with ChatGPT 4. I did have some issues with the code not always being 100%, but I've found it invaluable when I don't know the keywords for what I should be searching for. E.g. if I want to accomplish something fairly complicated in SQL, I'll explain the problem to ChatGPT, and it has always pointed me in the right direction as to what relatively obscure window function or whatever that I should use.
> LLMs don't replace my skill as a software developer
Not the greatest example. LLMs fundamentally cannot replace software developers. At the end of the day an LLM is just an interpreter, much like python, but using a different programming language. Any input to an LLM is developing software.
Perhaps the previous comment would be more understandable if phrased as:
"My reaction when I hear this is that those people are being paid entirely too much money if software developers can do their job."
And most importantly of all, game publishers do not want you to be able to use something you buy in Game A to decorate your character in Game B, because they want to skim more money out of you buying a new artificially scarce item in Game B.
Hell, Valve literally already did this with all CS:GO skins carrying over to CS2, it required zero blockchain, doesn't actually give you "control" over the item, and was only done because players have spent literal tens of thousands of dollars on skins and Valve needed to throw them a bone so they would be slightly less upset about CS:GO being essentially memory-holed.
One thing you'll see from a lot of these LLM examples and demos are intentionally subjective queries, so they can't be judged on pass/fail criteria.
For example, you'll see things like "where should I visit in Japan?" or "how should I plan a bachelor party?", because they are a huge variety of answers that are all "correct", regardless of how much you disagree with them. There is also a huge number of examples from them to draw from, especially compared to something as specific as your browsing history.
> The designs seems to cover all the motion of the wheel in the suspension - but I don't see how this could accommodate steering.
It actually doesn't. A wheel's camber changes as it moves up and down, which is why race cars typically have negative camber when going straight, so the tire's entire contact patch is used when going around a turn, which compresses the suspension of the outside wheel.
This design doesn't appear to handle this case at all. I'm not sure how a traditional suspension setup could be modified only move a wheel up and down, without any change in the camber, considering the fixed attach points of the various control arms.
It also (conveniently) ignores that a wheel's camber changes when it moves up and down, due to suspension geometry. It's certainly an interesting idea for sure, and any efficiency improvements here could help ICE vehicles as well. There's likely a reason these are just renders in a video though.
Hopefully they are able to work out these details, and eventually provide a real physical demonstration of these use-cases.
I just assumed that the drive shaft between the motor and their uni wheel system would have a universal joint in it that would solve both of these issues, would it not? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_joint
