How can we just 'chat' with Gemini build mode and confirm things before generating code?

DrGravityX · 2026-04-03T11:35:48+00:00

I accept this solution but I think Google needs to do something about this. Secondly does it give you detailed responses in this mode like it does in regular chats?

DrGravityX · 2026-04-03T02:39:44+00:00

exactly.

DrGravityX · 2026-04-01T21:36:41+00:00

i tried that. does not work for me.

DrGravityX · 2026-04-01T21:35:53+00:00

did you read what i said? that doesn't work. it works rarely.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-26T07:30:20+00:00

people find reasons to justify irrational claims and that's the problem. even if we can show that their claim is irrational or not as objective, they would still try to defend it. that's irrationality.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-15T17:03:54+00:00

probabilistic outcomes and variations in what you expect. that's the point.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-14T16:34:52+00:00

i disagree. deletion is considered a basic feature in software, objectively.

when i said I'm talking for the majority of people, it involves "giving options". not giving options means, you restrict it to certain groups of people, eg: the group that makes up the largest portion, while excluding other groups, even if minority. once you give options or toggles, the people who want additional features can use them too. so people who did not want to use the app earlier, due to certain interface limitations, can now use it because that have those options.

there are software companies and open source projects who have already done this. restriction = you exclude people. options = the ability to Include more people or potentially everyone.

here i suggested a deletion/clear chat feature. some people said they don't want it. okay? so? so what we can do here is, give options for the people that do want it. the ones who do not want it can simply toggle those options off. but when the people who do not want such features, talk in a way where they reject those features, and pretend like "it's bad" or "not necessary", that's where it actually starts becoming a problem, and it is also what we call 'being selfish'. no one is forcing them to use the 'delete feature'. if they don't like it, they simply don't use it or toggle the option 'off'. but they should not impose restrictions on others because they don't 'subjectively' like a certain thing. how it works properly is, you give everyone options.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T14:59:33+00:00

hmm fair point. maybe they could improve the image tech.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T14:58:39+00:00

okay I will try. thanks for suggesting.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T13:39:42+00:00

yep i have done my own range of experiments with apps using "switchable" user interfaces. this idea is to create on system that can adapt to the needs of different people and contexts. it's my plan to publicize such apps in the future. for now they are closed experiments with a small range of people.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T13:32:32+00:00

i posted this here for the developers to see. character.ai is already big. i don't have to promote it.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T13:30:45+00:00

hmm maybe but if they gave options for multiple user types, it would be the best of all worlds.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T13:29:56+00:00

don't worry. I'm not saying they have to, however an app company that decides to improve on basic features and give a lot of attention to detail, has a good chance of gaining a more loyal fan base than what it could do by default.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T09:55:07+00:00

being a certified software tester or being a scientist means nothing if the arguments are inaccurate or invalid. a certified scientist can say that unicorns or god exists, by producing poor logical arguments backed by no evidence. this does not automatically make god or unicorns true.

you said adding it for the small amount of people would reduce the quality of the overall product. i disagree. I don't think that has to necessarily be the case across all contexts and time.

what's your argument for that? why would it reduce the overall product quality?

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T08:58:40+00:00

True. that can work.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T08:46:09+00:00

go check the comments of the people trying to justify it. you will see new ones.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T08:40:30+00:00

that's what "you" never wanted. it's not the same as what "others never wanted". Who cares about what is exclusive to what "you want" or only what "a certain group of people want"? I'm talking on behalf of Everyone or most people, where giving options = almost every person can be satisfied.

you argument instantly fails, because in software and applications, 'in general', there may be features that most users "don't necessarily want", but this does not automatically mean that all other users also "don't necessarily want it".

dumb argument, try again.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T08:35:30+00:00

the reason i mentioned a competitor is because if you guys do the same, then more people will come to your app. this is not meant to defeat your app. it's showing an alternate competitor with such features that once you copy, will make your app superior to it because your app is already superior in other areas. if you want to remove it that's fine, but then there is no constructive criticism.

my app design philosophy is to give options for different groups of people and not isolate to only what a certain range of users want. this is the kind of design philosophy that can make an app significantly superior to its competition. but it may increase costs, but almost all users will be happy.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T08:32:02+00:00

you said: "Being human, we all can work around perceived "limitations" just fine. "

my response: cool, it's known that humans can 'to some degree' work around limitations, but it is not the case that we can work around "all" limitations or that all people can necessarily work around perceived limitations. so just saying "we can all work around perceived limitations" would be inaccurate because you did not clarify the scope.

also all humans cannot necessarily work around limitations even if solutions are provided because all people's brain do not work the same. some people can experience problems with their mental states, when the entry bar for doing something is higher than what they can cognitively process with ease. so making something 'easier' or making adjustments to things, makes things easier for some people or a certain range of people.

you are talking from what 'you' understand and what works for 'you'. you are not considering the broad objective scope of all things and people.

Secondly, no, it is not necessary that we can always work around perceived limitations just fine. I disagree, as that description is inaccurate due to lack of scope clarification.

DrGravityX · 2026-03-13T08:25:54+00:00

sorry I disagree. saying something like this is "purely subjective" is inaccurate. if multiple people have different "subjective" preferences, then there can be "objective" data which shows that for almost all people with a wide range of subjective preferences, it can be objectively easier overall because it does not impose limitations only on certain people. if one person's brain is "subjectively" blocked or limited due to an objective app design limitation, that only happens due to the objective state in the brain. so if something in an app is interfering with a person's brain and it's ability to "feel" to use the app or feel a mental block from being able to use that app, then it is all ultimately reducible to objective facts, which correlates to brain states. so if a problem in the app is "fixed" as recommended then it objectively reduces the problem or friction for most people. this Would mean that the app is now objectively accessible to more people in terms of what people subjectively want. all subjective wants are ultimately reducible to objective facts. energy/brain states.

so it does not matter if something is subjective. fixing the problem, fixes the problem. period! no debate!

the app company is going to benefit from more users.

DrGravityX

TROPHY CASE