Cool. I really like the music and composition with graphics.

I didn't hear of Revision demoparty before, the constraints are generous from what I found. Seems to be more about programming the art and not as much about impressive resource constraints.

Platform: Entries must run on standard Windows PC hardware (2026). GPU: Usually a top-tier NVIDIA card (e.g., RTX 4080/4090 or the 50-series equivalent). Resolution: It must be able to run at 1080p @ 60Hz at a minimum. Most now expected 2160p Audio: Standard stereo output primary audio device (usually HDMI or a high-end DAC).

File Size: there is no specific file size limit for the PC Demo category. However...

Content: The demo must be a standalone executable. all visuals and audio must be generated in real-time.

Originality: The entry must be "party-fresh," not been released or shown publicly before

Duration: While there is no hard cutoff, [...] between 3 to 8 minutes

Same. Still play StarCraft2 on a 4790k and AMD R9 Fury X.

Mine was beating the top pro at Go.

I had the same thought as I'm working with LLMs. Then I reached the same conclusion as I did without LLMs: you can get most of the benefits without many of the drawbacks using well-bounded 'modules' within a monolith. The article doesn't distinguish these:

> When coding in a monolith, you have to worry about implicit coupling. The order in which you do things, or the name of a cache key, might be implicitly relied-upon by another part of the monolith. It’s a lot easier to cross boundaries and subtly entangle parts of the application. Of course, you might not do such unmaintainable things, but your coworkers might not be so pious.

What it's saying could also apply to a monorepo with distinctly deployed artifacts. The reason many don't think about clear boundaries between modules is that popular interpreted languages don't support them. Using the Java ecosystem as an example, each module can be a separate .jar containing one or more package namespaces. These must have an explicit X uses Y declaration.

The problem I see isn't so much that misuse it's easy (though that's a part of it), it's that there's to clear indication that boundaries are being crossed since calling from one package to another is normal, and the fact that some packages belong to other modules isn't always obvious.

I would say don't buy one unless you are either (1) a researcher, or (2) plan to get multiple (up to 4) of them. One has 273 GB/s memory bandwidth and you'd be better off with a Mac M5 Pro/Max.

I haven't read this in detail but I expect it to be the same kind of sealed type that many other languages have. It doesn't cover ad-hoc unions (on the fly from existing types) that are possible in F# (and not many non-FP languages with TypeScript being the most notable that does).

Repeating that we don't have a definition isn't helping anything except vapid blog posts having another thing to debate. I'll give one that I believe. It's the practical ability to use AI for most things that humans do at human levels of competence, without specifically being trained for each. There is no requirement for AGI actually think/reason beyond practical measures.

It's evidently fueled a healthy debate here and you've tossed your opinion in the ring because of it.

I think you're on to something - we need a measure of what is considered "human levels of competence" or some bar by which we say "ok this is consistent enough"

I heard a similar analysis by an episode of Predictive History[0]. Only watched the first 15 minutes so far where it gets to where the US country/those in power (not population) benefits.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmERlHUqBk

> by Linch 1st Apr 2026

Perhaps you don't understand peon. The technologist is there to take orders and execute. You thought you were being given input/a voice at the table? God, no. That's above your station. Now go on, shoo. Let the monied people talk. We'll call you when we need something done.