I certainly have my complaints about openscad (mostly that the geometry isn't something you can operate on), but as far as I'm concerned a declarative language is perfect for describing an object. I don't want your example to do what you expect. I would have preferred if it didn't compile

Not that I disagree with you, but I _wish_ "regular people" used 240W charging every day. As far as I can tell it's still pretty niche and hard to get 240W chargers

Just convince the auto industry to use USB cables for electric car charging!

My desktop “server” with two 4K monitors doesn’t even reach 240W !

An arm Mac mini server in my basement has averted 4.9w over the last month.

What device would I encounter in my day to day which would use 240W charging though?

But wouldn't higher tps allow for more reasoning or other hidden processes, potententially making a smarter model?

This is my thought as well. Models have to be intentional about which tokens they burn because there's a real lag time. If you can just fork out 10 different reasoning sessions at once with no regard for token waste/lag, you can compensate a smaller model with just doing more at once with it. No idea if this is reasonably true though.

I think that only works if you have checkpoints where all that reasoning can be checked against reality. Otherwise you get an army of armchair experts. LLMs are hilariously bad at home improvement advice btw, where reasoning alone won’t get you far.

I've never really understood this opinion. For me there's plenty of times that some problem needs to be solved and simply banging my head against it isn't going to make it happen any faster. Having some easy low priority stuff to do for a bit (or a high priority short task that interrupts) seems to let my subconscious solve the issue in the background and keeps me happier and more motivated. If it was two difficult tasks that were supposed to be done in parallel maybe that would be different, but I've never seen anyone asking for that

> low priority stuff to do for a bit (or a high priority short task that interrupts) seems to let my subconscious solve the issue in the background and keeps me happier and more motivated.

For a bit is ok. I had one month task, that was interrupted daily for over a year, that's how I got demotivated and burned out so much that I needed neurologist.

> two difficult tasks that were supposed to be done in parallel maybe that would be different, but I've never seen anyone asking for that.

Probably that's why you say interruptions are good, no experience of how bad can interruptions be.

Allowing for creative incubation is a real thing. But task restarting penalty is real as well: you lose context and your mental model; working memory loses details; dependencies are reverified unnecessarily; flow state momentum lost; environment reconstruction each time and similar administrative tasks, etc.