Next step is allow viewing TikTok like wikipedia. Take a bunch of popular tiktok posts, use an LLM to describe what's happening via text/screenshots (with references to memes, etc), and link them to other relevant tiktoks.
Some meme sites might be somewhat similar to this.
> Next step is allow viewing TikTok like wikipedia
I tried that and this is what I got:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam tincidunt at dui vel suscipit. Donec finibus viverra tempus. Ut ut tellus ac mi ultricies fermentum a quis nulla. Vivamus urna mi, laoreet ac purus sed, ultricies tincidunt nisi. Quisque vulputate massa nec hendrerit consequat. Suspendisse potenti. Phasellus dapibus suscipit vulputate. Suspendisse id semper turpis, sit amet rhoncus nisl. Aenean auctor purus orci, eget ullamcorper lorem volutpat sit amet.
Instead of LLM and just like Wikipedia, there should be users to submit the descriptions of the videos, and see people fighting for getting the most “correct” description.
It will be hilarious to see what people will come up with when they see brain rot content.
Allow TikTok to be run like Wikipedia... So that people with no interest or knowledge of a particular subject can go round deleting said content, or blocking every shared IP from uploading content while saying anyone can edit it.
That's a very wrong view of how Wikipedia works, and frankly vastly I prefer its limited but generalized gatekeeping than "everybody is allowed to lie and bullshit and as long as it makes engagement your feed is going to be filled with it" the TikTok way.
I think it's spot on. I used to be excited to contribute to Wikipedia, now I feel unwelcome and actively alienated. Everyone else I know doesn't even attempt to make any edits because “it all gets deleted anyway”. It's an incredibly hostile, unproductive and unwelcoming environment for anyone trying to make goodwill contributions.
I have at least twenty years of experience of Wikipedia, and it is exactly how it works much of the time. I lost count of the occasions when people with no knowledge of a particular subject kept trying to delete articles on it. Then there were the continuously changing rules, jargon and oligarchical structures...
Some subject areas have much better coverage than others: linguistics is much better dealt with than sport for example.
Nowadays I rarely edit Wikipedia, because they block most shared IPs. I used a named account for at least ten years and it was counterproductive.
TikTok like Wikipedia, huh? So we’d finally get to see how much of the recommendation algorithm was edited by IP addresses from US gov, Chinese gov and Russian bots?
Good software engineers are concerned with product strategy. They might not be able to decide things but they can help inform product about options because they're closer to actually building things.
If you just implement product tickets you'll probably get replaced by LLMs.
It’s crazy how fast the tables turned on SWE being barely required to do anything to SWE being required to do everything. I quite like the 2026 culture of SWE but it’s so much more demanding and competitive than it was 5 or 10 years ago
Similar for me but maybe on a 386; used this 1989 book which had its own version of quickbasic called qbi since qbasic only got added to ms-dos in 1991.
You absolutely can for prototypes, but at production scale, you'll hit major issues with cost, latency, and random JSON formatting errors. We handle the heavy lifting—optimizing the vision pipeline and enforcing strict schemas—so you don't have to build and maintain the glue code around the model yourself.
>(my understanding of claude code is that it's a non-interactive agent, which is worse for what i have in mind. iteration and _changing my mind_ are a big part of my process, so even if I let the computer do its own thing for an hour and work on something else, that's less productive than spending even 10 minutes of focused time on the same thing.)
Just use 'plan mode'; it will ask clarifying questions.
Ruby has https://github.com/bokmann/business_time but when I looked at it, custom code was needed to calculate holidays that were offset because they are on the weekend.
Another way to think of it is if you're blurting out your thinking you're reducing redundant work and perhaps inspiring the other person to think of additional solutions that are offshoots of what you're dismissing. I see merits to both ways of looking at this.
Yeah I agree but that's why I think there's a balance. But the context here is the more nervous blurting which I think is going too much in the other direction. We should be comfortable with some silence and thinking.
But everyone has their own personal preferences. Which is perfectly fine too. But I think it's worth mentioning that, as illustrated by the comment, it's typically more acceptable to blurt than think silently. And there's the bias that blurting makes it harder to think silently by thinking silently doesn't make blurting harder (the uncomfortable with some silence part is not healthy imo. Of course long silence is a different issue but we're talking 30-60s)
Probably true for many. When thinking about hard problems I'm usually not thinking in language, at least not the kind we speak between us humans, so it can be incredibly distracting if I have to "translate" back and forth while both thinking and communicating.
My guess is this is so OpenAI can treat it as annual recurring revenue which helps with their stock valuation. I've seen non-LLM API vendors do this with their credits as well.
I updated it substantially via AI this summer (includes micros, compounds, and various other stats and a webpage with charts now) and then I started making diet changes based on these new features. Is really neat to compare data from before and after those changes. And like you suggested, I keep making improvements to the system and to myself and it becomes really satisfying / motivational.
Some meme sites might be somewhat similar to this.
reply