In the first 90 seconds, the narration refers to "the insane 19th century electronics that made color possible", but is referring to the 1900s, which were the 20th century.

The video contains no insight at all into "why" color TV was so difficult. It just lists and describes a few key advancements.

Also the "invention" of color TV is very different from the commercialization.

Very common for this format. It looks and sounds like something of substance on the surface, but ultimately it's just going through the motions and droning on to fill 10 minutes. Like a high-schooler with an assignment to give a presentation on some topic, but with higher production quality.

It does not have to be coherent, because it's entertainment, closer to a sitcom than educuation. If you think about it too hard you'll ruin it for yourself.

Before you blame YouTube and AI though, have a look at what documentaries on TV are and used to be like. With few exceptions they're not much better.

I disagree. I think the video clearly described the challenge, somewhere in the middle of the video, as sending TV signals that both BW and color TV sets could decode, and went on to explain how that challenge was solved by "inventing" separate Luma and Chroma signals. Did I miss something?

Really incredible how apparent the atmosphere can be. I love that you can see both blue sky and northern lights inside the bubble.

So not only is he not wrong, he's a keen social critic?

Personally I cleave to the extremes of the hyperintrospective portion of the spectrum, so no, I think taken at face value his comments are absurd.

Nonetheless you need to understand the dark and less visited corners of the mental landscape whence these ideas and his (putative) target audiences were borne (Bay Area rationalism), and the strategic nature of this communication which is more intended to send a message to certain sects rather than reveal anything genuine about himself or others.

At these echelons communication takes on a different character. You must understand if you speak at this level.

But why give him credit for subtext for which there's no apparent evidence? By all appearances he's saying this stuff in earnest. Why does it need to be "encoded"?

Information asymmetry is power in the era of abundant information.

Why not give him credit? If you read his other work and the background, all this stuff is obvious.

I grew up in the 90s.

"Backrooms" and liminal spaces take me back to my early nightmares/kid fears, or the way they've stuck in my memory, at least.

I have the same sort of memory reaction/association with chillwave/vaporwave, in part because it's chopped and screwed in a way that suggests memories of vibes.

The teaser trailer narration mentions the spaces as something the place itself is remembering, and misremembering, and that actually made me sit up and listen, because maybe this is an existential Internet horror film which actually gets the existentialism right!

Totally get why it wouldn't click with some people, but man, it does with me.

Well, we're not there today. Generated code and prose are still trivial to spot.

And even mass-produced products benefit from thoughtful design by a human.

Why didn't the blog post explain anything about why the rewrite is faster? Or about Zig, or C, programming, at all?

The title is obviously dishonest. I do not hesitate to call it a lie.

The post is also not about the speed increase, it's about how proud this team is of their agent orchestration scheme.

As I understand it, there is really no speed difference at all between Zig and C, just some cognitive overhead associated with doing things "right" in C. It's all machine code at bottom.

So why is this rewrite faster? Why did the authors choose Zig? How has the logic or memory management changed?

The authors give us absolutely no insight whatsoever into the the Zig code. No indication that they know anything about Zig, or systems programming, at all. I wish this was an exaggeration.

And really. With all this agentic power at your fingertips, why wouldn't they just contribute these improvements to git itself? I can think of at least one reason, that they don't want their changes to be rejected as unhelpful or low-quality.

Anthropic can't prop up Nvidia and the chip industry itself. If AI as an industry can't start turning a dollar into $1.05, a lot of stuff starts falling in value

Nvidia will be fine, same for the chip makers. They're selling shovels during the gold rush and they stand to gain even if local/on prem AI eventually dominates for casual users.

Yes, because they've vibed it into phenomenally unnecessary complexity. The mistake you continually make in this thread is to look at complexity and see something that is de facto praiseworthy and impressive. It is not.

Check out `print.ts` to see how "more LOC" doesn't mean "more polished"

Okay, I'm looking at it. Now what?

This file is exactly what I'm talking about.

Take the loadInitialMessage function: It's encumbered with real world incremental requirements. You can see exactly the bolted-on conditionals where they added features like --teleport, --fork-session, etc.

The runHeadlessStreaming function is a more extreme version of that where a bunch of incremental, lateral subsystems are wired together, not an example of superfluous loc.

The file is more than 5000 lines of code. The main function is 3000. Code comments make reference to (and depend on guarantees in connection with) the specific behavior of code in other files. Do I need to explain why that's bad?

By real-world polish, I don't mean refining the code quality but rather everything that exists in the delta between proof of concept vs real world solution with actual users.

You don't have to explain why there might be better ways to write some code because the claim is about lines of code. It could be the case that perfectly organizing and abstracting the code would result in even more loc.

Shopify absolutely has an interest in preserving the primacy of the Rails-adjacent tooling with which rv would compete.