If that CEO thinks the behaviors of the LLMs are "super smart", then I really wonder about his level of intelligence...

IT's certainly novel and different and can handle sorts of things that were formerly essentially out of reach of computers, but they are very much not "smart".

Processing that is dumb but with more human-like flexibility can certainly be useful, but don't expect people to be in awe of some super intelligence when they deal with something that seems to get basic things incorrect, asserts such incorrect things confidently, and doubles down on the same mistakes after being steered toward admitting the mistakes by interaction. I know, I also described how executives work too, but most of us aren't convinced that executives have human intelligence either.

This.

My take on vibe coding is simple: Don't.

At least not the way most people understand it. I'm totally ok with having an AI do the tedious work. But only do it on stuff you could do yourself (i.e. you're just saving time). Because otherwise, you'll never be able to maintain it.

This, in general, is the whole problem: The entire "vibe coding" movement only worries about CREATING code. But in the real world, maintaining, updating, refactoring, reviewing, testing, bugfixing, etc. etc. are typically more effort than writing it in the first place.

Broadly speaking, a lot of the 'cloud native' stuff are complex solutions to potentially complex problems that fit within the parameters that those approaches can handle.

If you don't have those complex problems, then it's a premature optimization that is painful. If your use case is not the sort of use case resembling the bread and butter of the applications that instigated these approaches, then it's all pain, no gain.

There was a team that maintained a project that was broadly panned for not being good enough. The developers decided that the cure for what ails them would be changing to 'cloud native' approach, despite the complaints really being about limited functionality, not even about performance or scaling issues. Now on top of having the same functionality complaints *now* they have performance and reliability complaints too, and they have no idea what they are doing, they just arbitrarily carved their single fixed instance of software into a couple of dozen fixed instances of services (they can't figure out how to scale arbitrarily, so they still have exactly one instance of every component). Not one of them is capable of debugging the convoluted network situation they've created, and the logging information is just a mess.

You already had your turn in the late 2010s after big data and before AI. You don't get to come back to the hype line for seconds.

The line has muddied, as consoles went USB and console accessories started being PC compatible.

Once upon a time, you popped a game cartridge into a purpose built specialty thing with bespoke capabilities to do the things the game companies wanted, with proprietary connectors and instant boot up and what you get is what you have.

On the PC side, you futzed with config.sys/autoexec.bat to have just the right memory layout, depending on if you needed the maximum conventional memory, ems or xms, and environment variables to match your dip switches.

Now a game console is an x86 box that takes some time to boot to an OS then you select an app, which probably is a game, and good chance it's developed with a game engine that pretty much equally supports Nintendo, PS4, and Microsoft ecosystem.

The PC side you just plug in, often the exact same accessory, and things automatically go. The UI of Windows can be obnoxious, but this is a prime mindset for Valve to take advantage launching their PC that's 10-foot optimized out of the box.

Nintendo held on to console-ness longer, with their Wii and Wii-U gimmicks, and their switch admittedly isn't an x86 box, but it's basically a gaming tablet, which is the other big thing eating into the casual gamer market.

The thing is that while the heat pipes can work in space and may have been used in satellites and then brought to earth, the issue is with the amount of thermal energy and having radiation as the only way to evict heat.

So while the mechanism for heat pipes started in space, the computers are *way* more wattage than the space based applications.

I wonder how the developers feel about that characterization. Now all performance improvements are subject to being attributed to motivated by AI for marketing points...

Been a while since I've flown a budget airline. On the normal flights I've taken, there's always a few people (usually older people) with paper boarding passes.

Fair point, I forget how utterly stupid businesses, particularly large businesses can get about boneheaded requirements that they mandate but do not use or do need, but could better solve it in a separate path rather than mandating it on what should be the 'wrong' product category.

Particularly surprising to forget since I'm basically continuously exposed to that in my job, but guess it eventually faded into the background of me not thinking explicitly about it anymore..

Problem with that is thinking it's vaguely new... This has been possible pretty much all along. The Cameyo demos I saw seemed underwhelming compared to almost every alternative I've seen...

Except it is a whole desktop, but with ability to request an app to maximize... It's kind of embarassingly bare bones for this level of claiming it makes ChromeOS just do Windows...

I certainly would agree with that direction, however this has been an option for an eternity and broadly hasn't moved the needle for Windows market share.

Once upon a time VirtualBox made an effort for this to work as a feature, and eventually dropped it in favor of just using Windows RDP to the same end. Doing it via a browser may be somewhat more convenient, but not fundamentally more accessible than RDP...

After watching a demo, I'd say this is in fact a step back from 'seamless' RDP, since you just get a web page with what looks like full-desktop RDP in it.

For an additional fee.

THAT, I believe, is the main part of this change. Ryan Air already doesn't even break even on the pure ticket cost. It's the horrendous extra fees that make it profitable.

Which cost, exactly?

We are speaking about paper boarding passes the customers themselves print. The gates read the barcode and don't care if it's on paper or a phone screen.

So which cost, exactly?

That's putting it mildly.

Smartphones can crash, run out of battery or any number of problems. On important trips I usually have a paper boarding pass with me as a backup. Only needed it once, but I'm just one person with fairly normal travel amounts. Multiplied over the number of people flying Ryan Air, statistically speaking this happens constantly.

Frankly speaking, I think it's a gimmick to milk the customers for more money. Someone at Ryan Air has certainly done the calculation, estimated how many people can't access their boarding pass at the gate for whatever reason, and how much additional money they can make by forcing all these people to pay the additional fee for having it printed.