A music creation tool by people and for people who either don't understand music, or low-key hate it.

You're about to be very surprised!

  echo old > a
  ln a b
  echo new > a  
  cat a b                   # prints "new" and "new"

Some programs like GNU sed [1] do create new inodes, but that is a property of the application, not the filesystem:

  echo old > a
  ln a b
  sed -i 'c new' a
  cat a b                   # prints "new" and "old"

With reflinks in a CoW filesystem the inodes are different from the start, but share the same underlying blocks:

  echo old > a
  cp --reflink=always a b
  ls -i a b                 # prints different inodes
  echo new > a
  cat a b                   # prints "new" and "old"

[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/sed/manual/html_node/Command_00...

Cool, I love surprises :D

Thanks for examples and especially the doc link. I don't normally use hard links, and for some reason was sure that's how they behave.

Maybe my belief indeed stemmed from observing software which overwrites opened file with a new copy.

No this is completely incorrect. The filesystem doesn’t break a link just if you open it. Your editor or higher level utility is free to do so (by unlinking and copying the data into a new file/inode), but this is not how the filesystem works.

Changing a hardlinked file changes it everywhere, unless your specific editor happens to create a new inode. Thus it depends on your editor.

CoW is similar except the new inode is created by the file system itself and is independent of the editor.

Guys look! An American up there

You should've removed your account too.

You won't miss much.

We all hope the current age of enshitification will eventually end.

Enshitification doesn’t end. It collapses under its own weight as people get tired and instead stop using things or switch to some newer radically different paradigm.

> switch to some newer radically different paradigm.

What if there won’t be a critical mass of fediverse users for it to matter enough and centralised social media platforms are all that we’ll ever get?

Asking because things don’t always magically get better, for example phones are still mostly using locked down Android that bends to corporate whims and the alternative phone options are quite limited (how many Linux phones have failed to get mass market adoption?).

Ofc not all is grim, like Framework is doing some good work on repairable hardware in general and also in regards to software there are quite a few FOSS projects that respect the user etc., like Mastodon also exists and is actually decent to use.

I just think it’s important to acknowledge that the network effects of some of these established players are quite major.

> What if there won’t be a critical mass of fediverse users for it to matter enough and centralised social media platforms are all that we’ll ever get?

I know this might not be a popular view but I'd be fairly content with a fediverse that never scales to the size of platforms like reddit, a lot of the reasons I use the fediverse is because it resembles older forums or even reddit before it was enormous.

With every year passed the bar for a successful Linux phone got higher. Potential users expect more & more apps for internet-related services to run while the companies tear down their APIs making more 3rd-party apps impossible.

Facebook Messenger didn't have an XMPP API because Zuck was a nice guy back then.

What exactly is a Linux phone and how does that actually change anything?

A phone with a freedesktop.org/XDG, FHS-compliant userland whose software is fully hackable if the user of the device wants to.

The fact that you use fediverse and framework as some catchall for future innovation tells me you are really missing my point.

I am talking more about on the level of things like the migration of time spent watching television to time spent on Facebook on a pc to time spent swiping TikTok on an iPhone. None of these are inherently good or bad, but many of them exhausted their ability to grow and attract costumers and as a result doubled down on extracting value from an existing base - that’s what enshitification is or so I thought.

Seems inherent to capitalism. I think hope here is futile

One can always hope capitalism is replaced by space communism like in Star Trek.

After I implement some feature, I often ask AI to write an ADR. The code is there, I just mention a few alternatives considered if not obvious from the conversation.

Always I ask the LLM to drop the prose and reduce the content by 60%. And it does. Then I go, and edit manually, and often trim it almost twice on top of that.

LLMs are professional bullshitters. Like real organic bullshitters they will mask the lack of real understanding with prose decorations.

Take you and me as an example. When we work, we might start with A, suddenly think of C, briefly jump to D, then B, revise the premise of A, and finally reach a conclusion.

Humans think by constantly shifting between association, working memory, emotion, and social judgment. However, when we write, we organize these scattered results into a coherent structure. In other words, our writing is not a raw dump of human thought, but rather a normalized output of human thought arranged in a logical sequence. I believe that in this specific process, LLMs actually have an advantage over humans.

Because it operates by continuously appending tokens conditioned on the sequence generated so far: What was just said -> The most natural logical next step -> The most natural logical next step after that.

In short, when it comes to unfolding an already structured logic in a sequential order, I think LLMs are superior to humans. Of course, due to this very nature, they tend to obsess over local context... You might disagree with me. But if what you say is entirely true, then are the claims that current LLMs are eliminating practice problems for PhD-level mathematicians just a scam?

Honestly, it's a workflow issue, so there is no single right answer.

I agree that an ADR should be concise, for example. However, if your user memory or custom instructions are already set to prefer conciseness, the information density will naturally be high. In my opinion, the fact that an AI adds rhetorical flourishes and unnecessary elaboration alongside essential information is fundamentally a configuration issue.

Furthermore, I suspect what you are referring to is its tendency to output overly accommodating explanations or mechanically neutral phrasing. However, I believe this changes completely if you provide sufficient source material. I think AI is capable of highly complex logical development. I felt this, for instance, when looking at Terence Tao's conversation logs with AI.

I consider using AI to be like pouring water into a tank. If you build the "tank" using academic paper data or strict constraints as your input, it fills that tank with water of much higher purity than most humans could. In fact, it produces drafts of higher purity than if I were to write them myself.

The reason I think this is simple. If standard AI outputs were inherently illogical, there would be no way to explain why it is showing such outstanding results in mathematics, the most logical of all disciplines.

Based on AI papers, my understanding is that the model maps to the word with the highest probability in the semantic space for the next token. Because it selects the semantic word with the highest probability, it completes the sentence based on the statistical likelihood in its dataset following that specific context. Naturally, if you use semantically deep words in your prompt, the output becomes equally deep. Humans are fundamentally inconsistent in maintaining this balance across different domains, but AI operates with perfect homogeneity.

An LLM's core mechanism is predicting the probability distribution of the next token conditioned on the current context, combined with techniques like sampling. However, when you use formal terminology commonly found in academic papers or words with deep semantic weight, the subsequent sentences and structural techniques actually unfold in a highly rigorous and logical manner.

In fact, if we define being "logical" as "faithfully adhering to a procedural development without logical leaps," then I believe LLMs are more logical than humans.

Humans can write at length about subjects they know well, but they falter in areas they do not. AI, on the other hand, can write about other fields with the exact same depth as my own area of expertise, to the point where it eventually generates code that even I cannot understand.

Conversely, if AI is truly nothing more than a "bullshitter," are its recent achievements in mathematics simply a scam? I don't believe that's the case at all.

Ultimately, it is true that our experience varies depending on our workflow and our own expertise. However, I have already seen too much proof to simply dismiss it as bullshit.

Not anymore, it seems

Writing sufficiently detailed prompt sometimes takes more time than writing code by hand.

However, the latter is an exercise that lets you become an expert. The former – not at all.

> if you could burn a gemma4 class model into an iphone

... you would still have a mediocre phone with half-assed barely working features driven by locked down proprietary software

No money from investors

I mostly agree with your observations, but in my experience, if you're spread very thin, you may be nearing the sudden burnout onset.

You feel motivated, full of energy, your juggle millions things at once, and then stumble once, then another time. Then your mistakes become more frequent. And you don't even realize you make them, others do... Until eventually you no longer operate efficiently.

Can take a few years to develop.

Take some rest. Especially if you feel productive like never before. It's gonna be hard to shut down for the first few days, so it should be at least a week of rest. Better two.

Chances are: after coming back you'll immediately notice a dozen of stupid decisions you've made.

Thank you :)

I think I'm handling this as well, though. I have my own personal retrospective every once in a while where I evaluate the different things I work on and if they're worth continuing, or if there are other things (or just rest) I need to replace one of them with.