5 people in my family each with multiple devices. To get them all to use FireFox which isn't even actual FireFox on iPhone/iPad, ditch the native apps, install specific extensions, figure out how to get it onto their TVs, how to get YouTube music to work in CarPlay with an ad blocker, probably other things I'm not thinking of... would be much more effort than paying.
> "The performance of their brushes collapses once the canvas size is over 8K x 8K pixels. Photoshop’s brushes work smoothly even when you’re working with 100 megapixel images out of a Hasselblad or Phase One camera"
I knocked up some quick code for drawing on an image a while back as part of a work project, but I've never actually checked how well it works on gigantic images. It calculates the bounding box of your stroke every frame, and uses an SDF-based system to calculate the pixels of the stroke (so if you draw quickly, it will correctly join up the points). I didn't focus too heavily on performance, other than making sure it was good enough to not slow down the app, but since its speed only depends on how much you're actually drawing per frame, rather than the size of the canvas, I'd imagine it would hold up reasonably on gigantic images?
Yeah, I think the article writer is too confident in the idea that these issues won't be solved:
"Those defending the poor performance of vibe coded apps have parroted the famous lines AI guys used in the past - “It is only days old” and “this is the worst it gets”. They make the mistake of equating human app development time with generative AI development time (hundreds of times faster). A vibe coded app is, in human hours, not only a few days old but closer to two or three years old. If a brush engine or transform tool works badly after the human equivalent of three years of development that is a demonstration of bad planning or an AI model not doing a good job."
I don't understand how this argument makes sense. Sure, yes, the vibecoded Photoshop clone is three human years old; I agree. It would probably take me about three years to build something like this. But that doesn't change the fact that its development velocity is, and will remain, "three human years in a few LLM days."
So if the brushes are a pain point, tell the LLM to focus on brush performance and let it run for a few hours.
Do people in offices typically just blast meetings out of their computer speakers? Everyone I work with uses headphones so we're not disturbing other people in the office...
Unless you have good ANC headphones, or find something like pink noise that fits you, you're still dealing with all the talking to microphone of your colleagues.
It's hard to describe how difficult it is to hear someone talking and then a second later hear then in your headphones. It really breaks my concentration. And it's a solvable technology problem - just use the local network for people in the same subnet. But every meeting provider wants _everything_ routed through their servers. There's no escaping they prying eyes.
In google meet you can ask anyone to "join audio" and if they approve, neither you nor them hear each other through the meeting, and you can listen to them talk next to you. But honestly a mildly noise reducing headset is enough.
No, I don't think it was a microphone problem. It was only like 1 in 20 calls. Really rare, and that meant it was always a surprise that made you sound like an idiot. And back then, almost nobody used a headset on personal phones. Cellphones weren't even that common.
reply