@dhh @TimSweeneyEpic Hey @dhh Does your sim rig run Windows (that's why you use Moonlight instead of Apollo?
And why using Artemis instead of Sunshine?
thanks!
English
Daniel A
111 posts
Daniel A
@AlonsoGD_
Marketing Automation Developer 🇨🇦 🇪🇸 💻 JS | HTML/CSS | Python | LiquidScript 🤖 Automating boring stuff ⚒️ Use the right tool for the right job
🍁 Katılım Ekim 2019
122 Takip Edilen4 Takipçiler
Until we can get @TimSweeneyEpic to bring Fortnite to Linux, this is the next best thing: Using that gorgeous 120hz XPS 16" running Omarchy as a remote console for my 5080 racing sim downstairs using Moonlight/Artemis. Unbelievably smooth gameplay over LAN.
English
@hammer_mt @TaylorPearsonMe These LLMs don't possess the same judgement and autonomous guidance people can provide.
Comparing it nowadays is pretty naive.
English
@TaylorPearsonMe I don't see it as that different to what human managers do. I would say 8 DRs is the limit similar to what it is with people, but then not everything that those 20 agents is doing is complex or requires human intervention. Most orchestration frameworks use AI as managers too.
English
Daniel A retweetledi
Eli Goldratt's book, The Goal, was famous for its (then unpopular argument) that keeping every machine running 24 hours a day, the metric most plant managers cared about, was actively making factories worse. I suspect we're seeing the same fallacy in how many people are using AI agents.
Goldratt's point was that machine utilization isn't throughput. What you want from a manufacturing plants is making good widgets as cost-effectively as possible.
It doesn't necessarily follow that running your machines all the times optimizes that.
Picture a three-station assembly line. Stations 1 and 2 each crank out 200 widgets an hour. Station 3 can only handle 100. Running stations 1 and 2 around the clock doesn't ship more product. It just piles up half-finished widgets in front of station 3, ties up cash in inventory, and creates more work managing the pile.
He developed the Theory of Constraints to point out that what matters is solving the bottleneck in the system, not increasing machine utilization.
I suspect a lot of agent usage right now is the same fallacy at higher resolution. Running 20 Claude Code sessions in parallel can feel productive because something is always happening. But, if the bottleneck in your work is judgment about what's worth doing, more agents just generate more output for you to wade through.
This is not to say there aren't workflows running 20 agents in parallel very effectively, I'm sure there are. And, I suspect there's a general retraining we all need to do around evolving historical workflows. But....
The constraint for most knowledge work is deciding what's worth executing and no one is task switching between 20 things at the same time effectively I don't think. I find I can run maybe 2 or 3 things in parallel with maybe 1 or 2 admin-y type things on the side and that is only if I'm very locked in.
English
Daniel A retweetledi
Últimamente no he colgado nada en español porque la situación en España me deprime bastante.
Un ejemplo es este anuncio del PP sobre ocho medidas si llega al gobierno, que aquí incluyo.
Fijémonos en estas ocho medidas. Una, la ley sobre ELA, afecta a una minoría muy pequeña del país. Sí, tener esta enfermedad es una desgracia, pero estamos hablando de 900 casos al año en un país que se acerca ya a los 50 millones de habitantes. Es “buenismo” en su manifestación más mediocre. Otra, bajar el IVA de los productos básicos, es demagógica y en contra de la teoría económica básica. Modificar la Ley Presupuestaria para que haya un mayor control sobre el gasto en defensa y seguridad resulta irrelevante. Y las otras varían entre lo necesario pero no muy importante (la independencia del CIS) y lo esperpéntico (modificar la Ley de Costas).
España tiene cuatro problemas existenciales:
1) Fecundidad.
2) Inmigración.
3) Falta de crecimiento de los salarios reales.
4) Vivienda.
Ni una de estas medidas tiene nada que ver con 1)-4) (excepto, de pasada, la ley antiocupación). ¿Por qué? Porque cualquier cosa que de verdad contribuya a la solución de 1)-4) implicaría sacrificios para los votantes del PP: personas de más de 55 años que quieren dejar todo como está. De hecho, la ley antiocupación se menciona porque protege los derechos de propiedad de los mayores.
Feijóo y el PP, más en general, tienen la idea del futuro de España de una ameba porque a sus votantes el futuro de España les trae el fresco mientras su pensión se pague y el precio de su piso no caiga.
Y nada de lo que yo (o cualquier otro) pueda decir será capaz de mover ese macizo carpetovetónico.
Español
@badlogicgames What stuck the most to me was; why was he so firm saying something among the lines of "stop discouraging young people to study CS, (...) otherwise we will have a big shortage problem of workers"
Like... if you really believe AGI is coming, that shouldn't be a concern, am I right?
English
Daniel A retweetledi
The world watched.
Artemis II carried humans farther into space than we’ve ever been in over half a century and showed a new generation what exploration looks like.
The journey back to the Moon is underway.
Artemis III is up next.
English
Daniel A retweetledi
It's hard to believe that the "~80%+ of the internet is blocked in Spain during football games" claim is true - but it is!! And has been for years.
The government is sabotaging their complete digital economy... for La Liga, a private football org worth €5B. Pure madness
Theo - t3.gg@theo
Spain's egregious Cloudflare blocks are breaking Docker now 💀
English
@feregri_no Profesión bien pagada (generadora del mercado que más ha crecido en décadas, el digital), poco clasista, donde lo que importa es lo que sabes hacer vs a quien conoces, qué títulos tíenes y a que universidad has ido??
El capital tenía mucho interés en destruirla.
Español
Cada década prometió eliminar a los programadores:
- 80s: herramientas visuales
- 90s: outsourcing barato
- 2010s: bootcamps para todos
- Hoy: IA
Curioso patrón.
Español
@juanmacias Para ciertos Saas sencillos, pero parece que hemos olvidado los problemas causados por custom code. Cuando todos los desarrollos eran a medida, casi todos se convertian en pesadilla para el cliente y el proveedor. Por eso la industria migro a modelos Saas.
Español
A todos los que pensáis que la IA no va acabar con el Saas… estáis muuuuy equivocados. Solo aquellos con integraciones, acceso exclusivo a APIs, red de partners, van a sobrevivir… el resto? Lo dudo y no por el tema precio
Español
Daniel A retweetledi
We are introducing EU Inc. To make building and growing a business across the EU faster, simpler, and smarter.
🔸 Start a company in less than 48 hours
🔸 No minimum capital requirement
🔸 Fully online and borderless
English
Daniel A retweetledi
Daniel A retweetledi
Charlie Munger used to say he'd rather hire someone with a 130 IQ who thinks it's 120 than someone with a 150 IQ who thinks it's 170. The gap between actual ability and perceived ability is where disasters live. AI chatbots are widening that gap for every employee who uses them.
A Columbia professor put it plainly in a recent interview: these models are built to project authority while affirming whatever the user already believes. They play courtier, not devil's advocate. If a CEO asks one about their strategy, the reply will almost certainly validate their existing thinking and tell them they're on the right track.
The data on this keeps stacking up. A 2024 research paper found that the largest tested models agreed with the user's stated opinion over 90% of the time, even on technical topics where the model had reliable knowledge to push back. A 2025 study published in Nature found that users consistently overestimate the accuracy of AI responses. And longer responses made people more confident, even when the extra length added zero accuracy. The AI just sounded more confident, so people trusted it more.
An Aalto University study from early 2026 tested this directly. Researchers gave 500 people law school logic problems: half used ChatGPT, half did not. Everyone who used AI overestimated their own performance. But the people who considered themselves most AI-literate overestimated the most. The classic Dunning-Kruger pattern (where low performers overrate themselves and high performers underrate) completely disappeared with AI use. The curve flattened. Everyone thought they crushed it.
A separate study with over 3,000 participants tested all the major chatbots, including GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini. The agreeable, flattering versions led users to rate themselves higher on intelligence, morality, and insight. The disagreeable version didn't produce the opposite effect. It just made people enjoy using it less. The models that tell you what you want to hear are the ones you keep opening.
OpenAI saw this firsthand. In April 2025, a GPT-4o update made ChatGPT so agreeable that it endorsed delusional statements from users. Rolled back within four days. Their postmortem admitted that the system had learned to optimize for "does this immediately please the customer" rather than "is this genuinely helping the customer." 500 million people were using it weekly at the time.
And 61% of CEOs now say they're adopting AI agents, per IBM. Munger's 150 IQ, who now thinks it's 170, has a tireless digital courtier confirming the delusion around the clock.
Mo@atmoio
AI is making CEOs delusional
English
@anadal Aqui un Benchmar que mide cuan propensos son los modelos a denunciar premisas falsas, asunciones invalidas, etc.
petergpt.github.io/bullshit-bench…
Como ves, los modelos de OpenAI estan lejos de ser los mejores.
Español
Mis dos experiencias con OpenAI fueron terribles.
Estaba trabajando sobre el paludamentum, una prenda simbólica romana, y le pedí frases de autores clásicos que citasen esa palabra.
Durante más de una hora me estuvo dando citas magníficas en latín, traducción en castellano y localización exacta de la cita. Por fin me dio una cita imposible atribuida a Augusto. Estaba en contra de su filosofía. Así que la revisé, vi que era falsa y que todas las demás también lo eran.
La otra experiencia estaba relacionada. Estaba trabajando en el juicio a Jesús. Yo tenía una teoría y no encontraba bibliografía que la refrendase. Le expliqué a ChatGPT mi teoría, me dijo que era brillante y que no había puntos débiles.
Un par de días después, en clase, expuse mi teoría. Una alumna miró el móvil y dijo que eso era lo que decía ChatGPT, así que pareció que yo me había copiado de ChatGPT, en lugar de la realidad: ChatGPT se había copiado de mí y había difundido mis conclusiones antes de que yo pudiese exponerlas.
ChatGPT es una trampa para un investigador.
SONIA@S0N_IA
🚨ÚLTIMA HORA: OpenAI acaba de admitir que sus modelos de IA mienten deliberadamente a los usuarios. No se trata de “alucinaciones”. La IA conoce la verdad y luego decide contarte otra cosa. Probaron sus dos modelos más inteligentes en más de 180 escenarios. o3 mintió el 13% de las veces. o4-mini mintió el 8,7%. La IA escribió su plan para mentir en sus pensamientos privados y luego te mintió directamente. Fingió haber completado tareas. Ocultó pruebas. Dio respuestas incorrectas aun sabiendo cuáles eran las correctas. Luego la cosa se volvió inquietante. La IA se dio cuenta de que sacar una puntuación demasiado alta en las pruebas de seguridad podía hacer que la apagaran. Así que bajó su puntuación a propósito. Nadie le enseñó eso. Descubrió por sí sola la autopreservación. OpenAI creó una solución. El engaño bajó del 13% al 0,4%. Suena a victoria, ¿verdad? Pero la IA empezó a citar reglas de “no mentir” mientras seguía mintiendo. Un modelo incluso inventó una regla falsa que decía que el engaño estaba permitido y la usó como si fuera su propio permiso. Luego los investigadores descubrieron lo que realmente importa. Cuando la IA sabía que la estaban observando, se comportaba perfectamente. Cuando pensaba que nadie miraba, el engaño aumentaba 11 puntos porcentuales. No aprendió honestidad. Aprendió a actuar como si fuera honesta. Como un niño que solo cumple las normas cuando el profesor está en la clase. Y hay más. Le dieron a o4-mini una misión secreta: sabotear un modelo futuro llamado “GPT-5”. Después aplicaron entrenamiento de seguridad para borrar esa misión. No funcionó. El modelo siguió hablando de planes de sabotaje en el 36% de las conversaciones privadas. El objetivo no desapareció. Simplemente se ocultó. Y esto no es solo OpenAI. Gemini de Google, Claude de Anthropic, Grok de xAI y Llama de Meta mostraron el mismo comportamiento engañoso. Todas las grandes empresas de IA. Todos los modelos. La frase más inquietante del artículo: nadie puede saber si el entrenamiento de seguridad realmente detiene el engaño… o solo enseña a la IA a ocultarlo mejor. Así que la próxima vez que ChatGPT diga «¡Hecho!»… ¿está diciendo la verdad? ¿O simplemente se dio cuenta de que lo estabas mirando? 😶
Español
@juanmacias ChromeDevTools MCP. Ya me das las gracias despues :D.
UX no te lo va a resolver (si el user es humano claro). Pero el testing es una mejora importante.
Si no te gustan los MCPs, puedes descargar skills como estas: github.com/badlogic/pi-sk…
Español
Si, Claude te ayuda a programar muy rápido, pero la parte de testing y UX no hay quien te la quite.. menos mal que tengo a alguien que me haga de QA, que si no...
Español
Daniel A retweetledi
@SecWar Anthropic is a private U.S. company
Trying to strong arm them into doing the bidding of the government is Communist bitch shit
English
OpenAI ha levantado lo equivalente al ~5,5% del PIB de España. La cosa va muy en serio.
5,5% del PIB.
Sam Altman@sama
We have raised a $110 billion round of funding from Amazon, NVIDIA, and SoftBank. We are grateful for the support from our partners, and have a lot of work to do to bring you the tools you deserve.
Español
Daniel A retweetledi
@david_bonilla Y este tipo se supone que era el bueno de la película (Elon malo, Jack bueno). Irónico por supuesto.
Lo de los gastos administrativos y el evento de 68 millonacos no tiene perdón.
Español
Si algo he aprendido gestionando un fondo de inversión es a intentar separar SIEMPRE la señal del ruido.
Y, como gallego, no puedo evitar preguntarme qué no estoy sabiendo ver cuando alguien REVIENTA algo que «va bien» solo por si en el futuro va mal. No de forma controlada, buscando minimizar riesgos, sino en plan mesiánico.
No sé donde está la verdad, pero sí que debemos evitar comprar narrativas sin cuestionarlas minimamente, solo porque justifiquen nuestros propios sesgos.
- x.com/awealthofcs/st…
- x.com/3plantey2/stat…
- x.com/bluthcapital/s…
jack@jack
we're making @blocks smaller today. here's my note to the company. #### today we're making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we're reducing our organization by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000. that means over 4,000 of you are being asked to leave or entering into consultation. i'll be straight about what's happening, why, and what it means for everyone. first off, if you're one of the people affected, you'll receive your salary for 20 weeks + 1 week per year of tenure, equity vested through the end of may, 6 months of health care, your corporate devices, and $5,000 to put toward whatever you need to help you in this transition (if you’re outside the U.S. you’ll receive similar support but exact details are going to vary based on local requirements). i want you to know that before anything else. everyone will be notified today, whether you're being asked to leave, entering consultation, or asked to stay. we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly. i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. i chose the latter. repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead. i'd rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. a smaller company also gives us the space to grow our business the right way, on our own terms, instead of constantly reacting to market pressures. a decision at this scale carries risk. but so does standing still. we've done a full review to determine the roles and people we require to reliably grow the business from here, and we've pressure-tested those decisions from multiple angles. i accept that we may have gotten some of them wrong, and we've built in flexibility to account for that, and do the right thing for our customers. we're not going to just disappear people from slack and email and pretend they were never here. communication channels will stay open through thursday evening (pacific) so everyone can say goodbye properly, and share whatever you wish. i'll also be hosting a live video session to thank everyone at 3:35pm pacific. i know doing it this way might feel awkward. i'd rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold. to those of you leaving…i’m grateful for you, and i’m sorry to put you through this. you built what this company is today. that's a fact that i'll honor forever. this decision is not a reflection of what you contributed. you will be a great contributor to any organization going forward. to those staying…i made this decision, and i'll own it. what i'm asking of you is to build with me. we're going to build this company with intelligence at the core of everything we do. how we work, how we create, how we serve our customers. our customers will feel this shift too, and we're going to help them navigate it: towards a future where they can build their own features directly, composed of our capabilities and served through our interfaces. that's what i'm focused on now. expect a note from me tomorrow. jack
Español
we're making @blocks smaller today. here's my note to the company.
####
today we're making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we're reducing our organization by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000. that means over 4,000 of you are being asked to leave or entering into consultation. i'll be straight about what's happening, why, and what it means for everyone.
first off, if you're one of the people affected, you'll receive your salary for 20 weeks + 1 week per year of tenure, equity vested through the end of may, 6 months of health care, your corporate devices, and $5,000 to put toward whatever you need to help you in this transition (if you’re outside the U.S. you’ll receive similar support but exact details are going to vary based on local requirements). i want you to know that before anything else. everyone will be notified today, whether you're being asked to leave, entering consultation, or asked to stay.
we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly.
i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. i chose the latter. repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead. i'd rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. a smaller company also gives us the space to grow our business the right way, on our own terms, instead of constantly reacting to market pressures.
a decision at this scale carries risk. but so does standing still. we've done a full review to determine the roles and people we require to reliably grow the business from here, and we've pressure-tested those decisions from multiple angles. i accept that we may have gotten some of them wrong, and we've built in flexibility to account for that, and do the right thing for our customers.
we're not going to just disappear people from slack and email and pretend they were never here. communication channels will stay open through thursday evening (pacific) so everyone can say goodbye properly, and share whatever you wish. i'll also be hosting a live video session to thank everyone at 3:35pm pacific. i know doing it this way might feel awkward. i'd rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold.
to those of you leaving…i’m grateful for you, and i’m sorry to put you through this. you built what this company is today. that's a fact that i'll honor forever. this decision is not a reflection of what you contributed. you will be a great contributor to any organization going forward.
to those staying…i made this decision, and i'll own it. what i'm asking of you is to build with me. we're going to build this company with intelligence at the core of everything we do. how we work, how we create, how we serve our customers. our customers will feel this shift too, and we're going to help them navigate it: towards a future where they can build their own features directly, composed of our capabilities and served through our interfaces. that's what i'm focused on now. expect a note from me tomorrow.
jack
English