161–170 of 197 posts
I wonder how much writing these scripts cost. Were they done in Claude's free tier, pro, or higher? How much of their allotted usage did it require?
I wish more people would include the resources needed for these tasks. It would really help evaluate where the industry is in terms of accessibility. How much is it reserved for those with sufficient money and how that scales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
internally uses the same root command btw. in fact this recently changed for Tahoe (as the article mentions). started out as a shell script but switched to a go binary (which is what is linked).
I hope this doesn't become a trend. Moving it to go means you need to compile it before you run it, or blindly run an uninspected binary from some random guy It's not like the performance of this could have motivated it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a bunch at work, yes. Can't publish them. Just an hour ago I "made" one in 2 minutes to iterate through some files, extract metadata, and convert to CSV. I'm convinced that hypothesis is true. The activation energy (with a subscription to one of the big 3, in the current pre-enshittification phase) is approximately 0. Edit: I also wouldn't even want to publish these one-off, AI-generated scripts, because for o…
>Just an hour ago I "made" one in 2 minutes to iterate through some files, extract metadata, and convert to CSV. Okay but lots of us have been crapping out one off python scripts for processing things for decades. It's literally one of the main ways people learned python in the 2000s What "activation energy" was there before? Open a text file, write a couple lines, run. Sometimes I do it just from the interactive she…
Example: I rebuilt my homelab in a weekend last week with claude.
Setup terraform / ansible / docker for everything, and this was possible because I let claude all the arguments / details. I used to not bothered because I thought it was tedious.
It's more complicated than "this cable is good/bad". I had a suspicion about one of my cables for months, but just last week I confirmed it with a device that shows the volts/amps/watts/total kwh passing through it: I have a USB-C cable with orientation. Plugged in one way it transfers about 5x more power than the other way, and in the lower orientation it's low enough for the earbud case I use it with to not charge.
I picked it up to find it had shut itself off, and now won't accept any charge, wireless or wired from any combination of power sources and cables. No signs of life at all.
I feel like we kind of got monkey’s paw’ed on USB-C. I remember during the 2000’s-2010’s people were drowning in a sea of disparate and incompatible connectors for video, audio, data, power, etc. and we’re longing for “One Port To Rule Them All” that could do everything in one cable. We kind of got that with USB-C, except now, you see a USB-C cable/port and you have no idea if it supports data only, data + charging,…
I was just thinking the other day, if the connectors had been USB-C from the start. No Type-A, no Type-B, no Mini, no Micro...
i don't understand why do competent people need to mention that they vibe coded something.
It's just because vibe coding is still "new" and various people have mixed results with it. This means that anecdotes today of either success or failure still carry some "signal". It will take some time (maybe more than a decade) for vibe coding to be "old" and consistently correct enough where it's no longer mentioned. Same thing happened 30 years ago with "The Information Superhighway" or "the internet" . Back then…
Why does it mention USB 3.2 (i.e. 20 Gbps) at all if it's for Macs? I thought Macs only support 10 Gbps and 40 Gbps, but nothing inbetween? (which is inconvenient because USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20 Gbps external SSD cases are much cheaper than USB 4 cases for now). Also, he is calling a binary a script, which i find suspicious. This task looks like it should have been a script.
USB-IF in all their wisdom used "USB 3.2" to refer everything from 5 gbps (USB 3.2 Gen 1×1 ) to 20 gbps
I feel like we kind of got monkey’s paw’ed on USB-C. I remember during the 2000’s-2010’s people were drowning in a sea of disparate and incompatible connectors for video, audio, data, power, etc. and we’re longing for “One Port To Rule Them All” that could do everything in one cable. We kind of got that with USB-C, except now, you see a USB-C cable/port and you have no idea if it supports data only, data + charging,…
I feel like we kind of got monkey’s paw’ed on USB-C. I remember during the 2000’s-2010’s people were drowning in a sea of disparate and incompatible connectors for video, audio, data, power, etc. and we’re longing for “One Port To Rule Them All” that could do everything in one cable. We kind of got that with USB-C, except now, you see a USB-C cable/port and you have no idea if it supports data only, data + charging,…
I was just thinking the other day, if the connectors had been USB-C from the start. No Type-A, no Type-B, no Mini, no Micro...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Destroy the whole standard. That's literally insane.
That's the price of strong backwards compatibility. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use a USB 3 (superspeed) device on a USB 3 host port with a USB 2 cable at all. And if you hate this, you should probably never look into these (illegal by the spec, but practically apparently often functional) splitters that separate the USB 2 and 3 path of a USB 3 capable A port so that you can run two devices on them without a h…