(summary of the relevant section if you're not going to click)
>>>
In the talk "Seeing Like a Programmer," Chris Krycho quotes the conductor and composer Eímear Noone, who said:
> "The score is potential energy. It's the potential for music to happen, but it's not the music."
He uses this quote to illustrate the distinction between "software as artifact" (the code/score) and "software as system" (the running application/music). His point is that the code itself is just a static artifact—"potential energy"—and the actual "software" only really exists when that code is executed and running in the real world.
> if you don't at least look at the running code, you don't know that it works.
Your tests run the code. You know it works. I know the article is trying to say that testing is not comprehensive enough, but my experience disagrees. But I also recognize that testing is not well understood (quite likely the least understood aspect of computer science!) — and if you don't have a good understanding you can get caught not testing the right things or not testing what you think you are. I would argue that you would be better off using your time to learn how to write great tests instead of using it to manually test your code, but to each their own.
What is more likely to happen is not understanding the customer needs well enough, leaving it impossible to write tests that align with what the software needs to do. Software development can break down very quickly here. However, manual testing does not help. You can't know what to manually test without understanding the problem either. However, as before, your job is not to deliver proven code. Your job is to solve customer problems. When you realize that, it becomes much less likely that you write tests that are not in line with the solution you need.
Casey Handmer is a huge solar bull and his estimate is that solar becomes cheaper than any other form of electricity even when generated from northern states by 2030 (likely sooner)
Iirc solar is meaningfully more efficient (30-50%) in southern states, so it will likely make sense to place energy intensive workloads in locations with more direct sun.
However, the cost of transmitting additional power is interesting and complex. Building out the grid (which runs close to capacity by some metric^) is expensive: transmission lines, transformers or substations, and acquiring land is obvious stuff. Plus the overhead of administration which is significant.
So there's a lot of new behind-the-meter generation (ie electricity that never touches the grid)^^
With all that in mind, I expect energy intensive things will move south (if they have no other constraints. Eg cooling for data centers might be cheaper in northern climes. Some processing will make sense close to where materials are available)
But a significant amount of new solar will still be used in northern states because it's going to be extremely cheap to build additional capacity. Especially capacity that is behind-the-meter.
IMHO "efficient" isn't really the right term in your second para. The PV generation per W incoming is actually a little lower at higher ambient temperatures, but is otherwise fairly constant.
I assume that you mean higher kWh/y/kWp, ie you get more generation out of a given solar panel in the south each year.
Without looking it up, is it sodium for "salt"? That's about as tethered to the actual use (salt + hash being a common crypto thing) as any of the names in the root comment
And what alternatives existed for Wolf in the 80s? What value were publishers providing?
Like many industries, book publishers integrated: editing, production, marketing, and distribution. They may have also helped with licensing.
Would _Who Censored Roger Rabbit_ have been the success it was with a different publisher? These counterfactuals are hard to prove! (Look at the discussions this year around k pop demon hunters - how much credit does Netflix get for growing an objectively good film's audience? Reasonable people debate this!)
The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors)
You don't need to tie yourself to distributor control if you catch fire and maintain your rights. It's never been easier to build your audience and personal brand.
VivziePop with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss was able to do this on YouTube and then ink deals with Amazon and merch retailers (where the real money is). Her shows alone rake in over $100m and the merch significantly more.
Glitch with Murder Drones and Amazing Digital Circus did the same. And they've stolen a lot of high profile folks from Disney for Knights of Guinevere and upcoming shows.
Psychic Pebbles did it and how has an Adult Swim show. Joel Haver, lots of others...
This is basically what George Lucas was able to engineer with his 20th Century Fox deal to maintain merch rights. But it's even better for creators today.
> The big publishers do provide utility, but there's also an incredible asymmetry (they have trivially made many more book deals than any of their authors)
Literally doesn't matter in today's meta for people making music, video, or games. A substack or podcast following will do the same for authors.
It's not that this isn't hard. I'd argue it's harder to get noticed today now that everyone can make content. It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing because you can hold onto more of your rights.
Today it's about building a brand following. If you can do that, the publishers will chase you.
It wasn't available for Wolf because nobody realized this strategy yet. A lack of Internet made it more difficult, but not impossible. George Lucas kind of got it.
This is incredibly incorrect! The examples you've pointed to illustrate the smiling curve [1].
Publishers still have an enormous amount of leverage and power, and that is extremely important for other businesses operating in that space. Not everybody is an individual creator, and some creators prefer to work on small teams. You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!!
> It's just that the power asymmetry is disappearing
This is so fundamentally untrue. Do individuals have more power? Yes! Their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is now "fine I can self publish and survive." That doesn't mean there's not a huge power asymmetry still. Without the blessing of Microsoft, Sony, Apple, valve it is hard to get my game featured. Can I still go viral? Of course! But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade. It prefunds development and allows him to hire a team.
As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters. The power asymmetry is alive and well.
> Would you rather I delete my comment
No, I want you to read more carefully and engage with the things people are actually saying and not what you think they are saying from briefly skimming what they write.
> You're describing this incredible transformation of the value chain (who provides value, who captures value) while missing the point!!
Yikes. I really do not appreciate your unkind tone in these last few messages.
There's a really big trend you're missing by focusing on old anecdotes.
The creator economy is on pace to exceed the size of Hollywood and the music industry combined.
There are kids on Roblox making six figures while still in school. The next generation knows what's up - they want to be YouTubers and not movie stars, because they know how fundamentally the world has changed. How a world that once relied on nepotism is opening up more opportunity. (It's still hard, but you don't need the "right parents" anymore.)
$100M brands and franchises are launching on YouTube.
Publishers and distributors will take what they can get. They make money on volume now, and if they screw over publishers, new players enter to fill the gap.
You could even go raise capital on that narrative of servicing the creator economy. The VCs I've talked to are excited about it.
> But listen to Zach Gage talk about the funding difference for making a game for Apple Arcade.
It's becoming easier than ever to raise funding for video game development. There are now dozens of funds specially for this. Including funds that give you six figures without a demo if you've already worked in the industry.
> As for rights negotiations, even Taylor Swift had some difficulty reclaiming ownership of her masters.
Taylor Swift is a billionaire and she negotiated her early contracts two decades ago. Before steaming, ie. ancient times, ie. when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And she's found ways to wiggle out of them.
> There's a really big trend you're missing by focusing on old anecdotes.
We're talking about the same trend: the transformation of the publishing industry across all different types of media.
I'm not missing it. I'm paying attention to the context of this transformation and what it implies for all of the participants, not just individuals.
The point I was making in my original post is that an author in the 80s did not have the same options as a creator today. You have repeatedly responded by talking about how creators today have so much power.
Please, go read a piece about the smiling curve from Ben Thompson, because it's important. This trend implies that margins accrue to the two ends of the spectrum. Yes, individuals with low costs win, but also there is another side to the smiling curve. While life can be good as a YouTuber, TikTok, Meta, and Google are not taking risks on content like the publishers of old but they still reap the profits from media production. It is the creators who now bear the risks.
This also means that the traditional mechanisms of funding your book through an advance are fundamentally different (they exist, yes, but they're different)
And because the smiling curve implies a hollowing out of the middle, it is harder to survive as small publisher (see the transformation and aggregation of magazines, newspapers, tv stations)
Am I excited about this future? Yes! But it's not an unmitigated good. And one can't understand it if they don't know any of the historical context or see what's happening to other players in the industry
The US has an incredibly strange relationship with shipbuilding.
Zvi and the Cato institute both have lengthy pieces about why the Jones act is bad [1] [2], and whether or not you believe that has entrenched our shipbuilders, the US essentially manufactures no ships compared to South Korea and China.
This naval news post says there are $5 billion in modernization costs for the shipyard needed for this project so it seems like we're still years away from a started (much less completed) project.
>"Zvi and the Cato institute both have lengthy pieces about why the Jones act is bad [1] [2], and whether or not you believe that has entrenched our shipbuilders, the US essentially manufactures no ships compared to South Korea and China."
One issue is that Naval ships are very different from commercial vessels, and at least in the USA, almost no shipyards have shared facilities and staff between the two products since WWII. Interestingly, most other countries do not build most of their naval tonnage (destroyers and frigates) to the same standards that the USA does (European countries are notable for using commercial hulls standards for these ships).
On a related note, the Odd Lots podcast had a (relatively) recent Jones Act debate episode, which is worth a listen if you're interested in the subject.
It is worth noting that the US and Korea have already been very engaged in trying to work together on ship building, mostly for the US, which we seem to have gotten quite slow and costly at.
Seems like a typical trump Big Announcement. No details, doesn't really fit with the actual state of the world, and no clear path to even getting these things built. I'll be surprised if >0 get built in Philadelphia in the next decade.
Fwiw, if you can use a thinking model, you can get them to do useful things. Find specific webpages (menus, online government forms - visa applications or addresses, etc).
The best thing about the latter is search ads have extremely unfriendly ads that might charge you 2x the actual fee, so using Google is a good way to get scammed.
If I'm walking somewhere (common in NYC) I often don't mind issuing a query (what's the salt and straw menu in location today) and then checking back in a minute. (Or.... Who is playing at x concert right now if I overhear music. It will sometimes require extra encouragement - "keep trying" to get the right one)
Out of curiosity, is this a question you think Google is well-suited to answer^? How many Wikipedia pages will you need to open to determine the answer?
When folks are frustrated because they see a bizarre question that is an extreme outlier being touted as "model still can't do _" part of it is because you've set the goalposts so far beyond what traditional Google search or Wikipedia are useful for.
^ I spent about five minutes looking for the answer via Google, and the only way I got the answer was their ai summary. Thus, I would still need to confirm the fact.
Unlike the friendly bot, if I can’t find credible enough sources I’ll stay with an honest “I don’t know”, instead of praising the genius of whoever asked and then making something up.
Sure, but this is a false dichotomy. If I get an unsourced answer from ChatGPT, my response will be "eh you can't trust this, but ChatGPT thinks x"
And then you can use that to quickly look - does that player have championships mentioned on their wiki?
It's important to flag that there are some categories that are easy (facts that haven't changed for ten years on Wikipedia) for llms, but inference only llms (no tools) are extremely limited and you should always treat them as a person saying "I seem to recall x"
Is the ux/marketing deeply flawed? Yes of course, I also wish an inference-only response appropriately stated its uncertainty (like a human would - eg without googling my guess is x). But among technical folks it feels disingenuous to say "models still can't answer this obscure question" as a reason why they're stupid or useless.
From the post and the example he links, the point is that if you don't at least look at the running code, you don't know that it works.
In my opinion the point is actually well illustrated by Chris's talk here:
https://v5.chriskrycho.com/elsewhere/seeing-like-a-programme...
(summary of the relevant section if you're not going to click)
>>>
In the talk "Seeing Like a Programmer," Chris Krycho quotes the conductor and composer Eímear Noone, who said:
> "The score is potential energy. It's the potential for music to happen, but it's not the music."
He uses this quote to illustrate the distinction between "software as artifact" (the code/score) and "software as system" (the running application/music). His point is that the code itself is just a static artifact—"potential energy"—and the actual "software" only really exists when that code is executed and running in the real world.
reply