If you really want to traumatize yourself, learn about Scientific Realism vs Instrumentalism. (And further reading, Early Wittgenstein, but know you are only going to understand 10% of it, but that's okay, everyone only understands 10% of it)
If you want to further freak yourself out about probability look up Bertrand's Paradox and The Problem of Priors.
Yes Social Science is less accurate than what people call hard science, but the edges of scientific systems should concern yourself of validity of even hard science. Its pragmatically useful, yes, but metaphysical Truth? No.
With the $20/month claude subscription I frequently run into the session limit in after-work hobby projects. If the majority of your dayjob is actual programming (and not people management, requirements engineering, qa, etc, which is admittedly the reality of many "developer" jobs) the $200/month version seems almost required to have a productive coding assistant
How are you using it? I'm curious if you hit the limit so quickly because you're running it with Claude Code and so it's loading your whole project into its context, making tons of iterations, etc., or if you're using the chat and just asking focused questions and having it build out small functions or validate code quality of a file, and still hitting the limit with that.
Not because I think either way is better, just because personally I work well with AI in the latter capacity and have been considering subscribing to Claude, but don't know how limiting the usage limits are.
The $20/month will go fast if you're trying to drive the LLM to do all the coding.
It also goes very fast if you don't actively manage your context by clearing it frequently for new tasks and keeping key information in a document to reference each session. Claude will eat through context way too fast if you just let it go.
For true vibecoding-style dev where you just prompt the LLM over and over until things are done, I agree that $100 or $200 plans would be necessary though.
I am. I use Deepseek and free-tier ChatJippity and as a sometimes-better search.
EDIT: I also wasn't going to say it but it's not about the money for me, I just don't want to support any of these companies. I'm happy waste their resources for my benefit but I don't lean on it too often.
You're a little too focused on my dig about it being a "sometimes better search" which is fair.
I'm not going to be sending money every month to billion dollars companies who capitulate to a goon threatening to annex my country. I accept whatever consequences that has on my programming career.
The Copernican Revolution (discovery earth was not at the center of the solar system) initially had worse empirical calculations because they didn't know planets traveled in ellipses.
The moments after the revolution might be worse, but in the long term, we got better.
It could be if it actually lets us calibrate our credence of your original claim that most revolutions have resulted in a lot of death for little benefit. If the worst examples are much worse than the best examples, or vice versa, then we can plausibly conclude whether you are at least directionally correct.
You don’t take the single best and single worst examples of a thing that has occurred thousands of times to determine if the results are more positive or negative on average.
That depends entirely on the specifics. If the worst revolution killed 20 people and the best led to the Enlightenment, scientific progress, vaccines, etc., you absolutely can judge your claim's merits, even if there were 10,000 examples of those bad revolutions and only 1 example of a good revolution.
Do you think this is a productive exercise and we are going to A) answer this and/or B) glean anything from it? This back and forth feels does not feel productive, unless we want to playfully and in good faith game out how this could maybe be done.
I suppose it doesn't matter because there is probably a search or something, but I only use my banking app and children's games every month or 2. I like knowing where they are at. 2 swipes away.
Also, doesn't this mean more attention to the screen? I can blindly pick apps without looking at my screen. Makes it useful when running + audiobook + taking notes.
Yes. Search works for finding things once every few months. Or, I've found that they tend to not really be that far down the list, because I only use a few apps per month anyway, so "1 month ago" is actually pretty recent in that regard.
But I also have specific apps pinned. Messaging, Browser, Camera all have fixed icons across the bottom of the screen, so I could blindly pick those as well as on any other launcher.
And in some cases, it means more attention, but more intent - which I find good. I'm far less likely to randomly open an app just because I see it on the screen. "Oh I havent played this game in a few months" never pops up (unless I scroll the complete app list, which it still has).
It's a trade off, for me, it means faster (but not no look - but tbh, I never have had that level of accuracy with any launcher) access to my most common used apps, and a slight decrease in rarely used apps. So I save half a second 10 times a day, and lose 5 seconds once a week. It's a tradeoff that I'm willing to make based on my particular usage patterns.
Even if it does, he still has a point. The first pebble that forms an avalanche is often symbolic. The symbol influencing others is how we get the avalanche.
This move by itself doesn't do much. The question is if it will influence others.
That does not mean it is "symbolic". It is very real choice made out of rational reasoning. There is nothing to suggest it was not meant to be a symbolic gesture.
It does rain in deserts, California isn't mostly desert (about 38% by land area), and drought is defined relative to normal rainfall, so even a place that usually has very low rainfall can have droughts.
And also droughts are defined by lower than normal precipitation. So if it didn't rain in a desert, and it's still not raining in a desert, that wouldn't even be a drought anyway.
I know the majority owner of a pretty massive fast food chain (600 stores, most franchises) and he was telling me he was offered 10M to sell the company. His entire life he worked day and night, and he would be getting $3M. (Mind you, he owns dozens of franchises, so he still keeps those)
He brought his kid into the business, and I can tell he has a bit of envy that I own a small software company that within a few years is approaching 1M in revenue. There is less glamor and margins in food.
I have some ideas of using my math/engineering skills to make low cost recipes that taste good, using my masters in Industrial Engineering to lower cooking/labor costs, but... economics pushes me towards high value. Any time I do the math on food service, I see myself making 100k/yr, and never 1M/yr.
They basically deliver food--not necessarily complete meals. But, yes, a lot of restaurants use them for food delivery. Probably not at the highest end but they can be pretty decent given good food prep.
I don't know where you want to draw the line but imo they get pretty close to complete meals (https://foodie.sysco.com/) especially when it comes to desserts and appetizers.
The desserts are where I can tell the most since one restaurants lava cake is often dangerously close to every other mid tier restaurant.
You act like $100k/year isn't still well above average. Hell it's above what SWEs make in any country that's not the USA.
But pertaining to this article, the key to tiny Japanese restaurants such as these snack bars is that their startup costs are extremely low, rents are low and since they're tiny, they don't need staff so they keep all the profit. Probably good enough to make an average living without too many worries.
So you're just bragging now? Do you even have a point? Cool that you make so much, but for most people in most of the world, $100k is a lot.
> I don't think the average person could handle the risk, difficulty of labor, and knowledge to run a successful restaurant that makes 100k/yr.
Margins are so low in restaurants in North America because of absurd regulations, zoning, rent, etc... Literally 90% of the costs are bullshit.
That's why it's difficult. You need a ton of revenue to deal with the bullshit, which means large upfront investment, staff, expensive rent, etc... You're doing more than most CEOs. Take away all the bullshit and it's a pretty straightforward business that anyone can do: you sell food and drinks.
In Japan or much of the EU, to make $100k you really only need to sell $150-200k. No staff, tiny footprint, minimal regulations, cheap rent or you own it. That's how restaurants can survive there with like 10 guests per night.
reply