That wasn't what was demonstrated, so therefore it doesn't exist. With the past dishonest publicity stunts done before, Tesla has earned this extra level of cynicism.
Because I noticed people at my work did similar requests to improve CI. The result was a faster CI, but full of cludges huge inline bash scripts in workflow YAML files, and effectively unmaintainable, unreviewable mess. After just a few rounds of these optimizations the entire CI setup is basically a Rube Goldberg machine but made of duct tape.
Without human advice and a metric shit-tonne of guidance (either pre or post) - anything that requires active consideration of future maintenance burden will cost you 2x-10x of the time you think "saved" over a medium-term time-frame.
The alternative is to spend at least 50% (or sometimes up to %100) of the "saved" time in active review and iterative improvement of the solution design.
That's always the question. Any mid-level engineer who comes into a CI setup can trivially spot several inefficiencies, that they could solve. They also know that solving those requires implementing some specific tweaks that won't generalize outwards from that project, or will require extra maintenance. Which they will now be the only ones aware of. 6 minutes in CI time is rarely worth the trade-off.
I think it’s much more simple than that. It comes down to caring.
I’ve had a long discussion with a coworker on a long drive.
What we came to realize is the difference in our attitude towards writing code.
I approach it as craft. Even when I’m doing 100% of my coding with an agent these days. I still care about the result to be of high quality and maintainability. I still use my system design knowledge to guide the agent to produce scalable systems.
He treats it like just a job. If it’s good enough he ships. The edge cases and bugs don’t matter. Can be fixed later.
But in my mind that’s a fallacy. We all know things don’t get fixed later unless they are obvious defects and users complain.
Instead we get slow degradation of overall quality. All those small issues compound overtime to create a brittle systems that is difficult to debug and maintain.
My mental model of software engineering is like this. Each commit/PR is a small LEGO block. If you make them well they’ll snap well and create a stable structure that can withstand forces. If every LEGO block you make is just slightly off here and there. Your structure becomes unstable and will always have faults and will always have failures under unpredictable environmental pressures.
And this is why I mildly dislike the term “software engineer”. If a mechanical engineer took your colleague’s approach toward their work, they would be legally liable for engineering malpractice.
> Originally developed by the Israeli company Mirabilis in 1996, the client was bought by AOL in 1998, and then by Mail.Ru Group (now VK) in 2010.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICQ
My ICQ UIN was one of the few online accounts that I completely lost control of. Some "Russian hacker" took it over, by guessing the password, credential stuffing, or some other method, and I noticed that my profile had been usurped into a Cyrillic one. And that was long, long before 2010.
Users have the option of silent/automatic degradation or a complete halt. I have it set to stop rather than degrade because I want to know when I've hit the safeguard.
From the claude settings:
> Switch models when a message is flagged
> When safeguards flag a message, automatically switch to a different model to keep chatting. When off, your session will pause instead. Applies to web and remote sessions.
FWIW I get a ton of usage out of fable and it's only happened to me once.
I don’t know how true that is. But I read a theory somewhere that people developed bigger brains when they started eating more fish which contains omega 3s.
That’s false. Carbs are not a requirement for human body. Proof of that are native populations living far north, exclusively off of animal food sources.
Human body prefers ketones as a source of energy. But glycogen is faster.
My simplified mental model is like this. Ketones are normal gasoline. And glycogen is racing fuel (ethanol). If you run a stock car on racing fuel it may start and drive for a while but it’s damaging the engine and creates unnecessary wear.
Also not really supported by anthropology or science.
The only folks who think like this are folks who choose to believe weird dietary theories to support a pre chosen stance, like the carnivore diet or some form of excess(in the form of self-care/diet)
“Ketones are normal gasoline” is a very fringe view.
Ketone supplements have been available for a while, and nobody was able to show any benefit of using them. 100% snake oil.
If on the other hand you want to produce ketones endogenously, you basically have to put your body in a state of starvation. It’s not really gasoline then, more like burning the passenger seats as fuel so you can arrive at the destination.
reply