So their are apps that do use similar or ECSs architecture under the hood, it is just more problem related not a solve everything solution.

But I did think, one station info per station probably also did not make sense, technology-wise, so I thought expanding it worked.

The faction system was my answer to what makes ships or planets' goals go beyond their immediate needs, and factions came naturally next. They want to make money and shift priorities to do it through incentives. Like subsidies almost.

I was hoping/thinking they (factions) could escalate to blockades, monopolies or just more supply control, skyrocket prices and events combat to hold choke points, blockades or sanctions. That way that agents FSM is focused on those goal oriented actions and ships can focus on their well being plus their factions incentives, and the crews needs handle immediate needs.

Does that make sense? (Terrible at proofreading)

Bevu/Rust just made it easier to brute force that scaling, since they have smaller footprints (overhead?)for each thread/process spawning.

And yah, ideally there should be tons more! The shift will be interesting.

In fact, when we don't discuss China, most find modern software patents and copyright to be abusive.

Finally, copying UX standards has been done for ages, it gives users a comfortable way to start using a product and instead of fighting that to be unique, some rather embrace it.

It can be jarring using so many different apps if each one tries too hard to be unique.

And this is my two cents, here it makes sense to have a similar interface, it's ultimately an app with chat sessions.

Why not let the model speak for itself and contribute to an open harness?

Sigh, there definitely an attitude creeping into the community and it's a huge turn off unfortunately.

Similar to Go and Chess, AI might make “programming for beauty” more accessible and popular. However it will almost certainly make the act of writing “code for money” much less valuable, which means many people will stop getting paid exorbitant sums to do what they love.

Personally what I loved was never the typing characters or optimizing algorithms; building is better than ever. But I really empathize with those who loved the craft of code golf, algorithms, literate programming, the elegance of micro structure of programs, etc. and who see their world under threat.

Most programmers are not being paid "exorbitant sums". Maybe if you can put up with working at Meta or something. I hate how VC culture is pretending that paying skilled people a fair wage is some horrible imposition on the poor millionaires and billionaires.

I love all of those things but don't feel threatened by AI. I do weird microcontroller things, I have dweets on https://beta.dwitter.net I have a website for making animations using 50 characters of a custom stack expression code. Algorithms, code golf, asm, inventing instruction sets, working on my own 8 bit cpu design, all that stuff is what I choose to do with my time.

I don't feel like it is in conflict with AI generated code. There's still plenty of uninteresting code that it can do.

I see some people disliking AI because they like solving problems, which I also don't really relate to, because AI presents entirely new classes of problems.

I'm not sure how much of this is just dependent on what kind of person you are, I find it quite amusing to see the ways in which LLMs get the wrong end of the stick and find it fascinating to analyse and counter the things that lead it to go off the rails. Some people seem to have the same experiences but completely different emotional responses.

I have made things with AI that I could not have made without using it, but at the same time AI could absolutely not have produced it without me directing what needed to be done.

I think the animosity to AI is more complex. There's combinations of anger about wealth disparity, a loss of trust, another of Sagan's great demotions, and this weird anticapitalist embracing of a hypercapitalist notion of Intellectual property.

Adding to this is, I suspect a few actors spending money to muddy the waters, from the Russian government, to the discovery institute, to people who just seem to like the sound of their own voice.

Keep responding kindly, respectfully, without assuming you know the internal thoughts of others, and you can influence things in a healthier direction.

I think a lot of the animosity is fear. For decades, software engineering/development/programming provided good wages,relative stability, and often satisfyingly challenging work. You saw a lot of people from secure parts of the economy being told to "learn to code," to secure their futures. Now you've got business leaders racing hard to push us into economic obsolescence or precarity (because that's where they want all labor).

It's not some bullshit about "personal identity tied up in being a hacker (broadly defined)" or liking code golf.

I think a lot of the enthusiasm of AI is from people who are too arrogant to read the writing on the wall, and it doesn't help that software engineers were paid so well for so long that many of us forgot we are laborers and confused themselves for billionaires (and adopted billionaire ideology, like libertarianism and opposition to unions).

If you are financially set for the rest of your life - Pro AI

If you are not financially set for the rest of your life - Anti AI

Just because it's better than you doesn't mean it's better than everyone else :)

I don't think I know of a single person who has seriously suggested that.

I think the most optimistic I have heard is that it might be the case that they will be better at some point in the future, with unrealistic timelines suggested,

Possibly the thing that will determine the long term survivability of each will be the respective attitudes of dang compared to Andrew. Putting out flare ups may be a fairly thankless and unending job but it probably is more protective than pouring gasolene over them.

Maybe one day dang will pop and it will all come out in a spectacular rage.

For PDF stuff I haven't needed much Lua filters since switching to WeasyPrint for the PDF engine.

It's even in the name. PeerTube. Peer. Your talking about 'consumers' of a product you produce vs a way to share videos that isn't YouTube with your .. PEERs.

Not 100k views videos. Think you should step back and think what your actually trying to debate or argue. It comes off kinda like your misunderstanding the software and conflating a lot of things that don't relate and not relevant to PeerTube.

Personally, I get huge mileage out of LLMs, and yes, I care deeply about code quality, readability, and debuggability.

I've seen juniors absolutely rock with them.

And I've seen the exact opposite, where they just struggle to get good results.

In the end, I think the divide comes down to management experience. The people thriving are the ones who have led teams, especially teams of contractors, which is the best analogy for how you have to interact with an LLM.

Those folks know how to break down problems, provide the right context, and scope a task just enough to see the "contractor" succeed before letting them move forward.

On the other hand, individual contributors who are used to just grinding solo often struggle. They expect a one-shot miracle. They say, "Hey, my code is buggy, fix it." When the LLM inevitably hallucinates or steers them wrong, they give up. The results are completely different based on how you treat the tool.

They might just have a high quality of control and standards that it is hard to find that pattern with the LLMs.

I think fierce individual contributors are a lot more valuable in the era of llms as well. We as humans typically achieve better balance with new stuff when we allow backlash from new processes that start to trample on old ones without understanding AKA the Chester's fence.

Anyways, more of a ramble than my two cents.