Some hypothesize that flashbacks might be the brain searching for relevant useful memories, or hallucinating if it can’t find any. Or, perhaps emotions or physical issues cause your brain to function differently and it’s not an adaptive trait.
Time slowing down does seem useful in the event you can actually affect your circumstances.
The difference is the point of sale. With VS Code, you purchase your AI compute elsewhere (Anthropic, OpenAI, etc.), and then use it through the free VS Code interface.
With Warp, you purchase your AI compute through Warp (who then pays Anthropic, Open AI, etc. based on the model you choose).
Their old Pro plan at $15/mo (paid annually) had 2,500/mo AI requests per month, use it or lose it.
The new Build plan at $20/mo has 1,500 AI requests, but they roll over. (Edit: apparently they don’t)
> No bones about it: this plan will be more expensive for some users and less expensive for others.
> We get that there’s a lot of whiplash in the AI devtools pricing market, and sympathize. While we expect some churn from this change, we are trying to do it in as minimally disruptive a way as possible.
I’ve found Warp to be very useful, but you’re really paying for AI compute, not the terminal. And the AI compute space is getting very competitive.
From what I understand, in the new plan the 1,500 AI requests don't roll over. Only the add-on credits you buy on top of that will roll over and expire after 12 months.
> On the Build plan, you pay for what you use and credits roll over month to month.
Here’s where I got it from, but I see how it’s ambiguous. “You pay for what you use” sounds a bit like the BYOK (bring your own key) “add-on credits” pricing model you’re referring to.
But in the pricing table, they refer to monthly “AI credits”.
* The casino takes a rake, so you lose money every hand, but you only win when the fish bets and loses. You’re also expected to tip the dealer
* Everything is on camera and dealers remember players, so there will be a lot of witnesses and evidence
* Seats often open one at a time, so you’d potentially lose money at other tables waiting to play together. Or, you all show up at once and ask to start a new table together, which would get suspicious.
* If you don’t know the fish’s cards, there’s still a chance you lose and lose big
> Because they would be smart enough to know the societal damage they caused by this revelation and they did it anyways...
That seems like a human-centric perspective.
Maybe they’re a cooperative, altruistic society with an innate desire to help, and maybe had been helped by others before. To not teach us about the imminent dangers of the universe might seem unconscionable to them.
Or maybe they’re a highly ordered society with an innate common goal and see nothing wrong with asking other entities to join their mission.
Sure, some humans may view their contact as intrusive or harmful, but that doesn’t mean they automatically would as well.
If I had to bet, I’d bet you’re right, but the universe is a big place and who knows what societies might be out there that would feel totally foreign to us.
> Maybe they’re a cooperative, altruistic society with an innate desire to help, and maybe had been helped by others before.
Then I'd be worried about us - we aren't the best ones in the Orion Arm. Surely there would be a clownshow of who should be representing Earth in such contact. And I doubt any nation or country would freely and willingly give all the knowledge shared by extraterrestrials and lose all the potential advantage. Unless aliens would manage to share it across the globe in some way at once or demand it has to be open to anyone or there wouldn't be "deal" at all.
The older I get, I'm more on "an elaborated simulation, prob ran by our ancestors elsewhere", "we are the first ones to emerge constantly on the edge of annihilation" or "a freak accident of cosmic d20 roll" side of things. Star Trek and rest of the stuff is pretty fun but I expect that reality is really bland and sad.
Hopefully there’s a similar “don’t make me think” mantra that comes to AI product design.
I like the trend where the agent decides what models, tooling and thought process to use. That seems to me far more powerful than asking users to create solutions for each discreet problem space.
Where I've seen it be really transformative is giving it additive tools that are multiplicative in utility. So like giving an LLM 5 primitive tools for a specific domain and the agent figuring out how to use them together and chain them and run some tools multiple times etc.
While a mainstream newsworthy story, I fail to see how it “gratifies one's intellectual curiosity” or is “Anything that good hackers would find interesting.”
Yeah, I too feel that anything that's TV news should be left out of HN. I mean, as an outsider (to us politics), I didn't see a whack of difference between standard twitter/instagram slop and what was on HN, for something like say, recent US elections. It was just slop here too. Not to mention most comments just quoting tweets, making most threads "RSS for twitter".
I feel like enforcing the TV news rule better is probably the best bang for the buck.
This doesn't mean all government related stuff, for example, chatcontrol is kind of tech-relevant, so makes sense to talk about it. But really? did we need to discuss charlie kirk here, or gaza/ukraine/pahalgam/what have you? Multiple times too.
Time slowing down does seem useful in the event you can actually affect your circumstances.