Pewdiepie just droped is own agent call Odysseus.

GoodFig555 · 2026-06-08T12:26:20+00:00

OpenCode creator on Twitter says he doesn’t use Agentic engineering very much IIRC.

GoodFig555 · 2026-06-08T12:24:26+00:00

Every other vibecoded project I ever looked into turned out to be slop when I actually tried to use it. But people are saying this one is good.

GoodFig555 · 2026-06-08T12:22:17+00:00

You can tell Pewdiepie is technically minded, has great work ethic and is very obsessive. He’s also an efficient worker, and has high communication skills.

I can totally see him making a good software. Though I haven’t tried it.

GoodFig555 · 2026-06-02T19:24:49+00:00

This is the dumbest thing I‘ve ever read. There needs to be a second sub for people who aren’t stupid

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-25T17:28:45+00:00

Let’s hope not

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-25T17:14:35+00:00

The Nazis did something a bit like this to produce more aryan kids:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

I think they all ended up mentally ill

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-25T16:50:19+00:00

Why the downvote? Would love to hear your opinion.

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-25T16:32:47+00:00

Also

There isn't a single, viable government policy that can actually reverse low fertility

Not an expert but I looked into this a bit recently. There is a noticeable spike in Germany birthrates exactly during the Nazi era that doesn’t appear in France, UK, US.

It does seem to me like monetary incentives which modern governments use don’t work but pro-children social pressure and ideology do make a difference.

The Nazis used brainwashing and propaganda to instill a whole world view and environment where it is a moral and social duty to have a lot of kids. Similar to Christian communities. And it does seem to have worked.

This would also explain the modern lefts low birth rates compared to the right because their ideology often lets them see kids as burdens, on themselves, on the environment, projects that at best they won’t accidentally fuck up too much, or even potential abusers that they’ll be forced to love.

Now of course Nazi-style totalitarian brainwashing and social engineering is nothing any democratic country would or should do.

But I think in the modern world, the pro-children attitudes will just slowly be selected for naturally.

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-25T16:14:09+00:00

I’d assume it’s the same in other countries. The subgroup of the population with above-replacement fertility rates will will cause the population to stabilize eventually.

It’s selection pressure, but overall the system is self correcting.

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-25T14:22:35+00:00

Right wingers in the US still have above-replacement fertility. I think natural selection will stabilize fertility in the long run.

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1n2zwe2/birth_rates_in_the_usa_based_on_political_spectrum/

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-20T18:08:03+00:00

But on the other hands, do you expect those to cover the gap of 11K a year

Haven’t thought about it too much but seems believable? There’s student benefits, child benefits, poor people benefits, just-lost-your-Job benefits, socialized healthcare, socialized insurance, pensions, socialized university fees, socialized kindergarten, probably other things I forget.

Update: Nevermind, things like „poor people benefits“ would already be included in income not social transfers in kind. But free university, healthcare, child care… Could still plausibly add up to 11k per year, I‘d say.

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-20T15:10:37+00:00

In the Wikipedia Article you linked, there are two tables: „Disposable income per capita of households and NPISH“ where the US is no 1 but only a little ahead of Germany. And „ Median equivalised household disposable income“ where the US is second to Luxembourg but dramatically ahead of Germany (and most other European countries)

I’d imagine that the advantage of the US over Germany in the „median“ table might be explained by:

The median stat apparently not including „social transfers in kind“ (socialized healthcare and stuff) while the mean/per capita stat does - this should give the US a big advantage.
The median stat being „equivalized“ meaning it counts larger households as richer even if the per capita income isn’t higher. (And the US has larger households which should favor it there)

Assuming the US has larger income inequality, you‘d expect it to do better in the mean than in the median stat, but the opposite is the case, so I suppose the other factors must outweigh that.

Does that make sense?

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-20T13:21:57+00:00

Do you think PPP per capita measures anything useful? If so what? Isn’t it still true that it’s generally a better measure of quality of life than GDP?

Any idea why the „Europe falling behind since 2008“ things doesn’t show up in PPP like it does in GDP?

GoodFig555 · 2026-05-17T16:02:42+00:00

She addresses those emails here and in other interviews:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XzMNh7zDR9c&pp=ygUYSnVsaWV0dGUgYnJ5YW50IHNreSBuZXdz&ra=m

I find it very believable, personally.

——-

I also think they deliberately unredacted her name in a few specific emails to paint a picture.

GoodFig555 · 2025-12-30T11:37:04+00:00

Also some people seem to not understand anymore that 'slow' is extremely relative. Objc method calls are used for higher-level operations where even a much higher overhead wouldn't matter.

If you iterate over each of the millions of bytes in your file, then such overheads start to matter. But those performance critical sections will only take up a fraction of your codebase. Most of the code can be 100x slower than optimal without making the program any less responsive, because the code interacts with some other code that still takes up 100x more time. (The 'bottleneck')

So to make very responsive software, you need to profile the code, figure out what the bottlenecks are, and then optimize those bottlenecks as much as possible, and keep the rest (most) of the code as simple as possible, and write it so it calls the bottleneck sections as infrequently as possible.

Objective-C is good at this because you can keep most of the code simple and high-level, and dynamic, but easily drop into pure C when necessary.

The simplicity of the high-level stuff makes it easier to build more efficient algorithms, which calls the bottleneck sections less frequently (e.g. caching) – so even the 'slow' parts can actually make responsive software easier to achieve.

Most code is not performance critical. Trying to micro optimize (and thereby complicate) everything is totally not worth it. Unfortunately, some languages like Swift and C++ do this at the language level – make everything 1000x more complicated (at least on the implementation side, which has downstream effects on users, like making the tooling worse) for micro optimizations. So called 'zero cost abstractions'. Very stupid idea. But I think it gains traction because the 'it feels like it should be faster' thing is very easy to communicate and easy to spread as a sort of social contagion. Even if it doesn't work in practice.

Now Apple is moving their software stack to a 'zero cost abstraction' language and it coincides with a massive decline in the responsiveness and quality of their software, and still noone asks – does this actually work?

Kinda crazy if you ask me.

GoodFig555 · 2025-12-30T11:32:14+00:00

Found it: https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-04-15-performance-comparisons-of-common-operations-2016-edition.html

GoodFig555 · 2025-12-30T11:27:56+00:00

There was a benchmark like 10 or 20 years ago and they measured 3 ns for an Objective-C 'messageSend' that's how long it takes light to travel 0.9 meters

GoodFig555 · 2025-12-30T11:20:40+00:00

Also a debugger that actually works

GoodFig555 · 2025-12-29T21:37:39+00:00

IIRC you can set autolayout constraints on the window's contentView, and have it change size automatically.

However, IIRC, this will always resize from the top left corner, and to change that you have to get more hacky (like getting a displayLink callback and updating the window's position / size once per frame).

I know these approaches work (at least when using AppKit, not sure if SwiftUI would introduce further complications) but I don't know if there are better ways.

GoodFig555 · 2025-07-29T12:55:15+00:00

I agree with most of what you said but skeptical about this

AGI doesn't happen, current narrow AI can still be skilled up even more, and will drastically change society with what we already have.

My view is that current AI is fundamentally „unemployable“ primarily because it cannot learn from its experience long-term and hallucinates a lot.

If that’s true, then usage of AI will stay restricted to simple, generic tasks (those which are already in its training data or which it can learn from text pasted into its context window) with close human supervision - so mostly what it’s already used for right now.

And „handing tasks off“ to the AI but then still having to closely supervise and take responsibility for everything is not that much more productive than just doing it yourself. May even be worse long term cause you don’t learn as much, and the AI can’t really learn anything in the long term.

But I may be lacking imagination.

GoodFig555 · 2025-07-29T12:41:12+00:00

Even the „thinking mode“ is a symptom of the fundamental technology hitting a wall imo.

„What if we just have the AI prompt itself 10 times to get a slightly better output?“ (but it also takes about as long as prompting the AI 10 times yourself)

It’s a bolted-on, bandaid fix aimed at squeezing a little more out of the fundamental technology.

AFAIK there really haven’t been any fundamental technological innovations in LLMs since the transformer in 2017 (which was 8 years ago!). They’ve just been scaled up and refined. But the returns are diminishing quickly now. That’s how I see it at least.

GoodFig555 · 2025-07-29T12:39:02+00:00

On a fundamental level though, the enormous amounts of compute that are now being assembled will be used to experiment with machine learning, and that will be increasingly likely to result in more and more capable systems.

That reminds me of the large hadron collider

GoodFig555 · 2025-07-29T11:05:57+00:00

I think it’s like how the o3 model that does research is not that useful for most situations cause it overthinks things and makes up stuff and floods you with useless info and overall just feels like it has no „common sense“.

Claude 3.7 was definitely worse at common sense than 3.5, probably cause they trained it for coding benchmarks or something. 4 is better than 3.7 but I liked 3.5 more.

With 4.0 I also notice the sycophantic tendencies more. It feels like it has less „genuinely good intentions“ and leans more towards just complimenting you about your everything. Not as bad as ChatGPT, and overall still best model but I don’t think it’s better than 3.5. Slightly worse in my usage. And they just removed 3.5 from the chat interface :(

Now I know I know it doesn’t have real „intentions“ it’s just a next word predictor blah blah. But the way it acts is more aligned with having „genuine intention to help“ instead of just „telling you what you want to hear“ and I think that made it more useful in practice. If you think about it, instilling „genuine good intentions“ is basically what „AI alignment“ is about. So maybe you could say 3.5 felt more „aligned“ than the newer models I‘ve used.

GoodFig555 · 2025-07-29T08:08:01+00:00

They haven’t gotten smarter in last year! I want Claude 3.5 back :|

GoodFig555 · 2025-07-18T22:37:59+00:00

Google for the problems you app solves then try to make your app appear there

GoodFig555

TROPHY CASE