I would love to have a nix flake to install it easily with nix! Given it's built in bash that should be basically no issue whatsoever.

Thanks a lot for this! I was interested in beads but found the author's approach to software development quite erratic and honestly a bit unprofessional. Yes, LLMs are great, but no they shouldn't be the lead developer.

Beads is an incredibly difficult-to-follow mess for something that is at its core a pretty simple idea. You distilled it to its core, I will absolutely be checking this out :)

A new kind of science is one of my favorite books, I read the entirety of the book during a dreadful vacation when I was 19 or 20 on an iPod touch.

It goes much beyond just cellular automata, the thousand pages or so all seem to drive down the same few points:

- "I, Stephen Wolfram, am an unprecedented genius" (not my favorite part of the book) - Simple rules lead to complexity when iterated upon - The invention of field of computation is as big and important of an invention as the field of mathematics

The last one is less explicit, but it's what I took away from it. Computation is of course part of mathematics, but it is a kind of "live" mathematics. Executable mathematics.

Super cool book and absolutely worth reading if you're into this kind of thing.

I would give the same review, without seeing any of this as a positive. NKS was bloviating, grandiose, repetitive, and shallow. The fact that Wolfram himself didn’t show that CA were Turing complete when most theoretical computer scientists would say “it’s obvious, and not that interesting” kinda disproves his whole point about him being an under appreciated genius. Shrug.

That CA in general were Turing complete is 'obvious'. What was novel is that Wolfram's employee proved something like Turing completeness for a 1d CA with two states and only three cells total in the neighbourhood.

I say something-like-Turing completeness, because it requires a very specially prepared tape to work that makes it a bit borderline. (But please look it up properly, this is all from memory.)

Having said all that, the result is a nice optimisation / upper bound on how little you need in terms of CA to get Turing completeness, but I agree that philosophically nothing much changes compared to having to use a slightly more complicated CA to get to Turing completeness.

> S-expressions are indisputably harder to learn to read.

Has this been studied? This is a very strong claim to make without any references.

What if you take two groups of software developers, one which has 5-10 years of experience in a popular language of choice, let's say C, and then take a group of people who write LISP professionally (maybe clojure? Common lisp? Academics who work with scheme/racket?) and then have scientists who know how to evaluate cognitive effort measure the difference in reading difficulty.

Isn't the space you're talking about the input images that are close to the textual prompt?

These models are trained on image+text pairs. So if you prompt something like "an apple" you get a conceptual average of all images containing apples. Depending on your dataset, it's likely going to be a photograph of an apple in the center.

Luckily I work with laravel and that's a spiritual successor to rails.

The development experience is almost always really smooth and there are more and more tools to further smoothen that experience every day.

There are definitely better tools out there but given how the web ecosystem functions, it could be much worse.

The Rails experience of 15 years ago is still achievable, with Rails, today. It's even better if you can believe it. You just have to throw out the notion of SPA frameworks and be willing to actually learn how HTML / CSS works. I read an article here a month ago about how nobody's willing to do that.

The deficiency in web standards that SPA frameworks were invented to resolve have all been fixed, there's nothing they offer anymore that you can't do without them. But they hang over the neck of the web world like an albatross.

What's a good doc or code template for SPA-free Rails?

What do you think of htmx + Rails?

Just use `rails new`. It's all built in.

I've been watching weird explorer for years and I had never considered I didn't know his name. I had _no_ idea he's caled Jared Rydelek!

His videos are incredibly interesting and fascinating

Given the popularity and activity and pace of innovation seen on /r/LocalLLaMa, I do think models will keep improving. Likely not at the same pace as they are today, but those people love tinkering but it's mostly enthusiasts with a budget for a fancy setup in a garage, independent researchers and smaller businesses doing research there.

These people won't sit still and models will keep getting better as well as cheaper to run.

No-one on LocalLlama is training their own models. They’re working with foundation models like Llama from Meta and tweaking them in various ways: fine tuning, quantizing, RAG, etc. There’s a limit to how much improvement can be made like that. The basic capabilities of the foundation model still constrain what’s possible.

I don't understand what the difference between a simulation and a test is?

Mostly just semantics.

There is none, and that's my point. Simulations themselves are contrived scenarios that are not representative of production environments.

Your url doesn't work, I can't read the article

Thanks, it should be fixed now!

Exploring the site, the about page and the related links made me quite confident this isn't just vibe coded with claude.

It seems like a passion project and a niche interest by the author.