CrankGPT

Post by SunshineTheCat » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 9:18 PM UTC

zahlman wrote: post #48

The webpage linked is an example of everything I wish people would stop doing in web design. Fortunately, at the bottom there is a link to the "technical documentation" ( https://squeezlabs.github.io/handcrank/ ) which is vastly improved (aside from being light-mode-only and linked from a dark-mode-only marketing page). It also gives me much more interesting information (specifically: models that can apparently run a…

Post by 1shooner » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

mrandish wrote: post #172

lelandfe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t scroll hijacking You can scroll normally, with all your favorite keys, or go super fast to the bottom It’s just scroll animations. Bad ones, admittedly.

> just scroll animations. Bad ones Scroll animations, post-grid floating voids, bouncy house dampening, hyper rounded... everything. These are the 50s Chevy fins of today. I've enjoyed working with some great designers over the years, Stanford D-School and even wild-raised. All the good ones intuitively steered clear of trends destined to be era-stamp tropes. They'd say, "I can already hear the ghosts of design-futur…

Post by pants2 » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 10:55 PM UTC

arximboldi wrote: post #199

pants2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're comparing raw calories to output, yes. Even gasoline has a caloric value, but humans can't drink gasoline. Growing and preparing food for human consumption uses a lot more energy than pumping and refining gasoline, so at the end of the day, human efficiency gains are not that impressive.

that's a misleading equivalence because you're also not considering the energy it took to grow the plants that produce that oil millennia ago. perhaps comparing to biodiesel or alike would be better. but even then it underestimates the efficiency of the human body, because food contains not only the energy we use, but also the materials to build the body itself. so you'd need to account for the inputs into that biodi…

Post by antasvara » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 11:42 PM UTC

zaat wrote: post #192

overfeed wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a strange comparison It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis >>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?

Yes, but walking and moving on wheels is oranges and apples. It would be a relevant comparison if a robot with a movement mechanism based on two feet was more efficient than a human.

Post by pixl97 » Tue, Jun 16, 2026, 12:08 AM UTC

eks391 wrote: post #215

layer8 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, humans want houses and cars and vacations and such, which makes them very expensive. ;)

Yessir! I even used AI this week, so I'm adding to the energy death of the universe way faster than if I had done something else. Not to mention my car and other things...