I don't think I was ever able to straight copy and paste from SO, everything needs adaptation, and code can often be simplified. And you need to understand your code. SO was useful, but nothing could be used copy pasted.
Maybe this is not the case if you are doing a dozen throwaway websites, but for anything serious that is an absolute requirement. I work in hard realtime safety critical code, think things like brake controllers, medical devices, auto pilots, etc. In my case industrial control systems. You need to have full control and documentation for your development process.
I don't really see this as analogous. Yes, you do choose an abstraction level to operate at, I rarely think in terms of transistors, or even gates (which by your logic an assembly programmer should do).
But I often do think across adjacent abstraction levels, because abstractions are (varying levels of) leaky. Modern compilers are after many decades good enough and modern computers fast enough that it is rare that I need to dig into the assembly (but I happens, compiler explorer is in my bookmark bar in Firefox).
Other abstractions are far leakier, it is far more common that I look in wireshark to debug network issues, the application level view is often not enough.
One of the leakiest abstractions currently is LLMs. Maybe in a decade or three they will be good enough, but they aren't yet, that's for sure. At least for the hard realtime systems level programming I do. For code generation they often make enough mistakes that the time spent after review and fixes comes out in the wash, even for simple tools. Their use for bug finding, RAG and similar is however promising.
My lived experience over the past few months is proving you wrong. I started with your position and have since been able to see how good the tools are when properly used. I've also noticed a huge gap in ability among engineers and I think the gap is widening. My theory is that some folks have the premium tools and some don't and the ones that don't are sort of in this weird limbo where they are sort of stubbornly annoyed at the idea of having to pay for these things so they lash out. Understandable but ultimately self defeating. You can in-fact force the LLM to use any pattern you want. I encountered this recently with a hand made framework I wanted to upgrade. It did stuff I didn't like. But well guess what? I provided it new constraints and it started to do what I want. Be as opinionated as you want. That's the whole point. It's basically your intern.
> My theory is that some folks have the premium tools and some don't and the ones that don't are sort of in this weird limbo where they are sort of stubbornly annoyed at the idea of having to pay for these things so they lash out.
At my last job the employer paid for OpenAI access for all of us.
Baby sitting an LLM is not my idea of meaningful use of time. And reviewing code that someone else had an LLM spew out even less so.
I am not lashing out because I don’t have access to LLMs. I had access and I did try it plenty.
This is really low effort man. You can do better than "You're not paying enough to be as good as me" followed by "oh...well you haven't paid this month."
When I encounter people who don't use these tools it feels more like talking to someone without a computer who is trying to convince you that you don't need one back in the 90s. Or someone being like "the internet is useless" back in 1995. I mean early days it was kinda like that. The early internet for normies was almost entirely useless.
The change has been so rapid that I think a lot of people are having a hard time I guess wrapping their head about the lived experience of it. For a while my only access to the tools was through work. Then I ended up getting a $20/month ChatGPT account and that comes with codex and now I can't imagine sitting there Googling a problem anymore. It literally feels low tech these days. Big "I'm not paying for Cable, the antenna is good enough" energy. It saves me soooooo much time just maintaining my own local stuff. I mean it literally saves me hours and hours of personal labor.
The local models will 100% catch up. Most likely the inference I use now will be free in five years across the board and you'll be buying a cyberdeck or something with a 128G of RAM and an LLM friendly bus architecture.
> When I encounter people who don't use these tools
But you didn't encounter those people. People said they've used the tools, and then you said it wasn't recent enough. Not because you know when they've used it last, but because their experience didn't match yours.
It's great that it's working for you, really. But since you have been posting on HN a lot about this, while simultaneously claiming you don't care what other people do, maybe consider a different approach than calling everyone luddites. If people call you a shill, and you exit the conversation claiming you don't care, but then you go to the next thread doing the same low effort stuff, don't be surprised when people see a pattern. There are lots of people communicating more effectively about this.
Don't confuse the cost of org wide LLM services with coding. Two different things. Most people at any org probably just want ChatGPT so they can write reports and do research. And now they want it to sync with Google Drive or w/e so they can pull in docs. Obviously that stuff is classic B2B Software as Service hosting. Prices will go up just because that's how B2B prices work when enterprises negotiate yearly services but overall it's not the most expensive line item by a long shot and power users are only a small sub set of the population of all the users.
But for code it's a race to the bottom because it's all text and local works quite well. You can host models on LangSmith and similar and because people use those services to create chat bots the overall use of them for coding is a very tiny fraction of their overall usage. The race to the bottom is further exacerbated by the fact that as GPUs become more powerful you can host more per unit so the cost of text inference will drop precipitately. Right now people are reporting that for some of the self hosted services they are able to do everything for under $5 / month. That price WILL drop because that's how computers work.
I could see them making working with third party filaments more and more inconvenient. They already do to some extent where the NFC tag system only works on first party filament, and they are not interested in opening it up, using encryption to prevent third party tags from working with their system.
Yeah, I'm curious too because I've been following all 3d printer news lately and only news re: Snapmaker is that they officially hired Ratdoux who came up with the full spectrum printing and they're integrating it into Snapmaker Orca.
Orca really needs a plugin system so that we don't get so many forks. I want full spectrum, wave overhangs, Snapmaker customizations for their printers, Sovol customizations for theirs. I also want the latest Orca nightly. So that's 5 different forks of Orca a good plugin system could replace.
Oops my bad, I mixed up Flashforge and Snapmaker. It was Flashforge that also started closing down their ecosystem. Snapmaker has been having a good track record so far with their open-source Klipper-based firmware and I hope they continue to do so!
The A1 mini has turned out to be a fire hazard as of recently. Some component in the power supply that can explode and in the worst case catch fire. Multiple events during the last year, and shockingly it hasn't been recalled. You probably don't want to run yours while not in the room.
The thing is, a Prusa will last way longer, and when something breaks it is fully serviceable. All the cheap Chinese brands are at best only partially serviceable. Just the other day I saw a post about a BambuLabs X1C that had to be thrown out because of a pully that was worn out and not replaceable.
Snapmaker (also Chinese) seem to be doing things better at the moment, but only time will tell how the serviceability is.
For me personally, the only viable choices today would be a Prusa Core One (possibly with INDX for multi-material, I don't care about MMU/AMS, those are just for multi-colour and with a lot of waste) or a Voron 2.4. My Prusa Mk3.9s bedslinger is still going strong though, and I don't expect to replace it any time soon.
Is it worth the upgrade to 3.x? I have the mk3s for years now and I love it. No issues at all. Bought it after I finished my freelance job at Ultimaker, as I had to return my S3. I wanted a premium experience, which prusa sure has. Considering upgrading the 3 or buy a new prusa core something something.
Second hand market for prusa printers is decent as well.
Mk3s is indeed great. I tend to swap nozzle often (different sizes, hardened vs brass) and the Nextruder makes that way easier. I also don't have a space where I can print overnight so the additional speed was extremely useful to me.
The Mk3.9 probably isn't a price competitive upgrade though, today I would in your position probably look at selling the Mk3s for 100-200 EUR and buying a Core One instead. But if the Mk3s works for what you are doing, then don't bother. (The Mk3.5 might make some sense if you only want a bit higher speed and network connectivity.)
Personally I don't see myself replacing the Mk3.9s for a long time, though an enclosed printer would be nice and let me print warp-prone materials like PC and ASA.
Thanks!! Speed indeed would be nice. Could go for 3.5 then. the enclosure looks better and keeps dust away from the buildplate. I think i will eventually go with core one then.
I'm not sure if a 3.5 will be as fast as a 3.9. You could enable printers you are interested in in the slicer and slice some typical models of yours.
Because of things like acceleration and flow limits the scaling isn't as simple as a constant factor but also depends on the geometry of the part (sharp corners lead to slowing down) and material (check max volumetric flow in your slicer, will likely be set way too low for your current filament profiles, especially if you switch to a high flow nozzle on the nextruder).
You didn't specify a price range, but a Prusa Core One with INDX, or a Prusa XL could work if you aren't price sensitive.
I have heard good things about the Snapmaker U1 that just released, though apparently the slicer software isn't quite there yet, but you could just run stock OrcaSlicer instead.
Time will tell how reliable and more importantly serviceable the Snapmaker is. Prusas are renowned for both of those.
But what does Prusa offer for dust and moisture free filament storage? Why doesn't Prusa copy the "enclosed filament storage on top of printer' solution that is so much better then spools dangling on the side? I don;t want to but a BamuLabs I am willing to spend 2k+, but not on a printer that does not have a properly integrated filament solution.
Plastic degrades over time with heat. Filament that stays in an "enclosed filament storage on top of printer" will either have to be hermetically sealed or actively heated to keep moisture out of the plastic. Given the very nature of these boxes (they need to feed filament to the printer through a tube), they can't be sealed - so you're left with either something that doesn't keep filament dry for long, or degrades it over time due to over reliance on keeping it hot.
What is wrong with a set of third party dry boxes, possibly even cheap DIY ones? I seem to remember there is a common plastic box that is made for storing cereal in that is just the right size. Just add some reverse Bowden tubes and put a series of those on top of the printer.
The filament handling is part of the printer to me. You wouldn't want a car without a gas tank (just strap a jerrycan on the roof), or a table saw without dust collection. Ok, bad examples but to me the filament handling is part of the problem I want solved. And I want it solved in a single machine/ setup. I have an old prima that I made en enclosure for and a bit Ikea tub with silica beads and 5 spools of filament routed through custom tubes to the MMU. That is a messy setup, takes a lot of space, and look like crap. If I spend north of 1k or maybe 2 for an upgrade, I want the entire problem solved. Not 80% with an implied hobby project included. No thanks
The upcoming INDX looks promising. But I can't see how Prusa solves the "dust and moisture" problem. They don't have something like Bambu Lab's AMS, do they?
Same problem with the Snapmaker U1.
Edit: the Snapmaker U1 also seems to have an open top, which is problematic for ABS, I assume.
Fair, but adding third party dryboxes (possibly even DIY ones, I believe there is a common plastic box for storing cereal that is just the right size, just add some silica gel to the bottom and a tube for the center of the spool) with some reverse Bowden tubes would be trivial.
You might be interested in the SponsorBlock[1] browser extension for Firefox and Chromium based browsers. It deals with this issue, and is open source.
>You've saved people from 21,262 segments (5d 18h 50.7 minutes of their lives)
>
>You've skipped 3522 segments (1d 5h 17.4 minutes)
Not just for skipping ads, but also pointless filler like intros and engagement reminders.
I hope someone makes an AI-Block addon, to filter out slop channels based on the same crowd sourcing principle. It's gotten so bad I rarely venture beyond that channels I'm already subscribed to, because those are pre-sloppocalypse.
Some countries have national archives that all published material must by law be submitted to, including material published online. I know at least Sweden and the UK has that. This will be available for researchers, though usually you have to physically travel to the archive to access the data, so not as convenient as IA.
(It is worth noting that at least in Sweden "published" here has a very specific meaning, that doesn't include personal websites etc, but it does include news outlets.)
That isn't true, for UB the compiler is allowed to assume the UB can never happen. For example if you dereference a pointer and only after check if it is NULL, the compiler can remove the NULL check, since it is clearly impossible (nevermind that you might be on a microcontroller where NULL is a valid address).
The fallout of this are quite large!
If behaviour is implementation defined the compiler has to stick to one consistent behaviour. No such need for UB, you can get different behaviour bu changing unrelated code, by changing between debug and release or just because of what garbage happened to be on the stack.
Since the compiler is allowed to assume the UB doesn't happen it will also sometimes look like the compiler miscompiled your code elsewhere, but what actually happened was some inlining followed by extrapolating "this can never happen".
UB is often surprising: I have seen unaligned loads crash on x86 due to it bring UB in C (even though x86 is generally fine with it). But once a newer compiler decided that it was fine to vectorise that code (since it clearly aligned) the CPU was no longer happy with it.
>That is, the compiler de facto defines what happens when you compile UB code.
That is not what undefined behavior is though, that is unspecified behavior.
The entire point of undefined behavior is to cover the cases where the compiler can't define the semantics of your program either because doing so is genuinely not possible, or is incredibly onerous to deduce, or would require introducing runtime checks whose performance cost is at odds with C and C++'s predominant use cases.
Maybe this is not the case if you are doing a dozen throwaway websites, but for anything serious that is an absolute requirement. I work in hard realtime safety critical code, think things like brake controllers, medical devices, auto pilots, etc. In my case industrial control systems. You need to have full control and documentation for your development process.
reply