Just tried GSD and Plan Mode on the same exact task (prompt in an MD file). Plan Mode had a plan and then base implementation in twenty minutes. GSD ran for hours to achieve the same thing.
I reviewed the code from both and the GSD code was definitely written with the rest of the project and possibilities in mind, while the Claude Plan was just enough for the MVP.
I can see both having their pros and cons depending on your workflow and size of the task.
All that, plus with wires, I can run the cable under my shirt and up through the neck hole. When someone starts to talk to me, I can just pop them out of my ears and let them dangle across my chest without having to hold them in my hands. I also don't have to worry about dropping them on the floor.
This was common for kids in the 00s. Having just one bud in while talking to someone was common. There was also this type that instead of having two equal length wires, one to each bud, was asymmetrical and you would wrap the longer wire around you neck so you could easily "unbud". Sony invented this, I think. In fact there were some pretty crazy designs before Apple made the simple but conspicuous earbuds popular again.
All that and they cost a fraction of the price! Wireless headphones are a strictly inferior product to wired, and it astonishes me that Apple convinced anyone to buy them. They're a total rip off.
I can leave my phone on the charger or propped up with a recipe on the counter while I cook and still get signal. Wired headphones cannot let me walk between rooms without picking up my phone.
Wireless headphones take up much less space. I can put them in my pocket trivially.
Wireless headphones can tell me where they are and if I've left them behind.
Wireless headphones don't have a piece of plastic that dangles on my neck, shoulders, and face. As someone with sensory issues, this is genuinely important.
I've never had to spend five minutes untangling the cords for my wireless headphones.
I've never accidentally snagged the cable on my wireless headphones, causing them to snap off.
I can put my phone in a waterproof case in my backpack and protect it while walking. I don't have to do cable management to route the wire.
It's fine to prefer the wired headphones. I fully endorse that for you. Maybe drop the hyperbole about how wired headphones are strictly better?
It's weird, because I absolutely agree in principle, but 90% of my headphone use is wireless now.
And I hate it: latency, glitches, randomly just deciding not to connect anymore, deciding to connect in the lower-quality headset mode when I want to listen to music, and refusing to switch to the high-quality mode, battery running out at inconvenient times, the cat knocking them off my nightstand and under the bed where I cant reach them. So many reasons to be annoyed by them!
But I hardly ever take out my wired headphones anymore, and I'm not sure why. Back when I got my first phone without a 3.5mm jack, I just kept a little USB-C adapter in the little pouch/case that held my wired IEMs, and it was fine. But at some point I bought a new phone, and there was a deal on cheap (or free?) wireless earbuds with it, and I really just stopped using wired headphones for the most part since then, even though the wireless ones really annoy me for so many reasons.
Similar story here, I love wired headphones but have to admit that, after being gifted my first set of AirPods, my actual use of any sort of personal speaker device went up like 20x or more. It’s exactly that factor of being able to get up and walk around without a thought that does it. That’s the reason I’ll often not put wired headphones on in the first place, but no such concern with wireless.
(I actually don’t like 3.5mm jacks as much as some people do, though, as my experience has been the ports get janky over time if they’re under any strain at all, which they will be on a mobile device and which is always a back-of-my-mind source of stress when using them, but quarter-inch jacks are awesome)
Wireless is more comfortable. I don't have to deal with cables brushing against my ears or sitting on my neck.
Wireless can't get caught on doorknobs or other protrusions.
I don't have to plug them in. I put them in my ears and they work.
They automatically work with multiple devices. I put them in and make a phone call. I put them in and take a video meeting on my computer.
There certainly are advantages to wired headphones and more power to you if you prefer those tradeoffs. But it's bizarre to call wireless "strictly inferior." It should not be difficult to find at least one thing about them that someone might find to be superior.
For me, all of my wired headphones and earbuds have died the same way: audio cutting out or completely lost due to cable damage due to storage and use cycles. Wireless has completely fixed this for me.
I bought two pairs of premium wireless headphones about 10 years ago. These failed gradually, I patched them up with tape and kept them going. One of them had the Bluetooth electronics fail but still works wired, the electronics are fine on the other one but physically it is a jumbled mess that I can't really tape together anymore but it kinda sits on my head.
I went looking for the state of the art in headphones and bought (1) a set of AirPod Pros and (2) a recent Sony headset.
My feelings about the AirPods are terribly mixed.
10 years ago I think the best reason to spend $250 instead of $25 on a set of Bluetooth headphones was that the $250 device would pair properly with multiple devices whereas it might take you 15 minutes of screwing around to unpair and repair the $25 headphones every time you need them. But hey they are so cheap maybe you can pack one for each device you have and not worry about it.
Today it is the other way around, somehow $25 headphones "just work" with Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Steam Deck, whatever. After I disabled the microphone and switched to the microphone on my camera, the AirPods got reliable with Windows. Inside Apple's ecosystem it tries really hard and almost works, yet the $25 headphones "just work" and don't seem to be trying so hard. I don't get messages warning me that somebody else's $25 headphones are following me around but my iPhone tells me that about my AirPods all the time but I think it is a KPI for somebody in Cupertino that I see the word "AirPods" as much as possible.
Now the sound quality of the AirPods is just great, I'll grant that, but I'm not going to be one of those annoying youngsters who is as hard as hearing as the oldest oldsters because I have some genetic polymorphism that makes me produce copious amount of earwax that eject the AirPods from my ears if I move too much. My doc says one of these days my ears are going to plug up and I shouldn't get so excited about it.
I got myself a plastic welder - the thing that melts little pieces of metal to strengthen plastic joints - now I can keep old plastic things in shape almost indefinitely. Cost like 10 usd or so and has prolonged the life of all manner of things.
If you still want to make the old headphones work these welders are a godsend, and with some small amount of diy work of cleaning, sanding and buffing you can easily hide these welds.
I personally like to leave them though since they accent that something that was once broken is whole again, and that it has a long history!
For whatever reason, in my experience, the 1st gen Airpods Pro seem to pair much more easily to non-Apple devices than the 2nd gen. I have a 1st gen pair more or less dedicated to my Linux PC, and they auto-pair 99% of the time within a few seconds.
Mine do. The phone's lightning connector socket has become "flaky" (from age, or lint..), and at this point I must hold the phone in hand rather than in pocket while walking, for uninterrupted playback.
Same here. And also unlike airpods, you can't easily lose one that you can't replace. Which also renders the one left useless because you can't pair it with another orphan, what a waste.
The current summary on the home page contains bias / one-sided reporting.
> While the administration describes the strikes as a necessary move to stop nuclear weapons, the conflict has already seen accidental friendly fire and threats of a ground invasion.
The balance to the assertion "this was necessary" isn't "but there's been some consequences" -- it is an exploration of the truth of the assertion.
Given there is an "AI pipeline" in play, I suspect this is just the typical compulsive equivocation from an LLM. Never assert strong opinions. Find something to say while actually saying nothing. Always give "both sides" equal treatment and consideration no matter what the sides actually are.
"Always give "both sides" equal treatment and consideration no matter what the sides actually are."
It can't even do that correctly. Looking in the list of rights, it has some things called rights and others called policies - "Abortion Rights" vs "Gun Policy". Either call them both policies or call them both rights.
That's not a fair assessment. Context: I hate Trump as much as Khomeini. A "both sides" treatment would be:
US & Israel illegally assassinate Iranian leader in bombing campaign, calling agression "necessity".
Now, if you'd like to lean to one side or the other, you can either:
- remove information about legality and the fact that they are the authors of the agression, add something about Iran being a threat to its neighbors
- or insist that any excuses provided by USA or Israel about nuclear weapons is 100% bogus as they have been claiming this for over 20 years
"We have no choice to do this horrible thing, but it may have slightly bad consequences for us" does not take the second side into consideration at all. It's very biased, and it's a very strong opinion in itself.
Of course i'm biased (though probably not like you mean), but that "both sides" depiction was fair and rather neutral. I'm personally very happy Khomenei is dead, and so are my iranian friends. But we are all very concerned that he is dead for the wrong reason, under a wrong pretext, and with very grim perspectives (see also what the US did in all the countries it bombed in the past 20 years).
I think Khomenei and Trump are two sides of the same coin: bloody authoritarianism and religious zealotry. They're both pretty bad, but one side in this conflict was clearly the aggressor, and denying that is in itself picking sides. One can both sympathize with a victim of unjust aggression, and at the same time thinking they're a profound piece of shit.
One could even point out that just a few years ago, Trump was very insistent about "no more wars", and that he regularly mockingly predicted that Obama would attack Iran to avoid talking about domestic policy. Turns out the hypocrisy level is high and he really is beyond a doubt the bad guy in this story, even if that does not make the iranian ayatollahs good guys by any measure.
They are, of course, but there are two different consequences involved in this assessment. One is "stop nuclear weapons" (the converse would be "do not stop nuclear weapons") and the other is "friendly fire incidents" (the converse would be "no friendly fire incidents"). Neither are directly related to the other, since the former is specific to this engagement and the latter happens in any combat.
It also seems rather off base on the sentiment analysis as well.
>"We are on day three of President Trump's military operation in Iran. It's the most courageous military decision of my lifetime, and we are kicking a*. The United States military and the Israeli military, working in tandem, are kicking the hell out of the Iranian government. How is Iran planning to fight back? They have friends. They're counting on pathetic, mewling Europeans and the ridiculous, sad sack Democrats who just hate Trump and don't care about America winning."
I really enjoyed the "Michael Hobbes Podcast Universe" this year. He's a reporter who is now making entertaining podcasts debunking claims in the media/zeitgeist. I appreciate that he takes a pragmatic approach -- to paraphrase something he said: "There's probably an impact on kids having so much screen time, but this data you're citing doesn't show what you're claiming."
Imagine my surprise that the company that posts "Collaboration sucks" and endorses a YOLO approach to decision making then has a security breach based on misconceptions of a GitHub action that was caught by security tools and could have been proven out via collaboration or a metered approach to decision making.
Babies. 8% of the patients under that category are Age 0
Edit: the full billing code is "Obstetric and gynaecological devices associated with adverse incidents" Billing code Y76 "describes the circumstance causing an injury, not the nature of the injury."
So injuring a baby during delivery with forceps would result in this code.
the carve out is weird and usually open-source does not say, no to the navy using it BUT, it's OK for DARPA ...
> Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing.
Given the ambiguity of the phrase "military use" when the military does, in-fact, use it for things the military does - I am not confident in the slightest with Arduino's use of language here.
> Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing.
Indeed. Also because any big organisation or corporation can both do evil and good. Often research projects with guarantees to release knowledge or some other improvements such as to software projects under a permissive licence.
i wrote the article, just go ahead and call me shady and leave out other people at the company. limor will be back online next week after recovering (just had a kid) and you can call her shady too.
But you did not sign the article? I don't understand this.
IMO it would have just been easier to simply sign it. (With signing I mean mentioning who specifically wrote a blog entry; and also ideally the time as well.)
those were previous blocks and a couple of banned people assumed it was that, it was not, and since then we mute and document blocks with our social team. regardless, a block from what, 4 years ago, hurt someone that bad, twitter really did hurt people.
I reviewed the code from both and the GSD code was definitely written with the rest of the project and possibilities in mind, while the Claude Plan was just enough for the MVP.
I can see both having their pros and cons depending on your workflow and size of the task.
reply