Weirdly I feel like partially because of this it feels more "human" and more like a real person I'm talking to. GPT models feel fake and forced, and will yap in a way that is like they're trying to get to be my friend, but offputting in a way that makes it not work. Meanwhile claude has always had better "emotional intelligence".

Claude also seems a lot better at picking up what's going on. If you're focused on tasks, then yeah, it's going to know you want quick answers rather than detailed essays. Could be part of it.

Companies are not comparing it straight to juniors. They're more making a comparison between a Senior with the assistance of one more more juniors, vs a Senior with the assistance of AI Agents.

I feel like comparison just to a junior developer is also becoming a fairly outdated comparison. Yes, it is worse in some ways, but also VASTLY superior in others.

It’s funny so many companies making people RTO and spending all this money on offices to get “hallway” moments of innovation, while emptying those offices of the people most likely to have a new perspective.

the distinction here is mainly jets vs props.

Gravel will happily fuck up a prop just as much as a turbine; it's more about ground clearance. The engines on modern airliners are quite low to the ground, which is why they tend to ingest gravel kicked up by the nose gear.

What's the ground clearance of a flying piece of gravel! (in a gust of wind for example)

>What's the ground clearance of a flying piece of gravel! (in a gust of wind for example)

I'm not sure I understand the question you're asking. "Ground clearance" refers to the space between the thing and the ground. Airliners are low-wing monoplanes with the engines slung underneath the wings, and aft of the nose landing gear. The tires at the nose can kick up gravel which not only dings up the underside of the fuselage but can also get sucked into the jet intakes. There's only about 2 feet of clearance between the engine cowling and the ground.

Compare this to a C-130 Hercules which is a high-wing monoplane with turboprops, which is designed to handle some degree of unprepared surfaces. The prop tips are never less than about 5 feet from the ground.

Or, compare to a Piper Cub which has much less prop ground clearance but has the prop mounted forward of the nose landing gear so it's much less likely to encounter gravel.

"What is the ground clearance of a flying piece of gravel" is... not really a question that makes sense to me.

I expect that “How high does a pebble get clear of the ground?” is what they meant to say afaict.

"gust of wind"

flying gravel not limited to nosewheel kicks

I agree with you functionality wise, but a video showing it in use would be a good idea so those of us away from our midi devices can at least see it in action.

I wish I could do this. Do you even use a flip phone or anything? Or simply no cell phone?

Contextually no one is using nanometers in aviation nav applications. Many aviation systems are case insensitive or all caps only so capitalisation is rarely an important distinction.

Similarly, no pilot in the Devil’s Lake region is using DVL to mean Deauville, and vice versa. :)

No one is using nanometers in aviation navigation. Quite a few aviation systems are case insensitive or all caps only so you can't always make a distinction.

In fact, if you say "miles", you mean nautical miles. You have to use "sm" to mean statute miles if you're using that unit, which is often used for measuring visibility.

Sure but I could imagine some kind of software failure caused by trying to divide by a distance that rounded two zero because the same location was listed in two databases that were almost but not exactly the same location. In fact I did when I first read the headline, then realized that it was probably nautical miles.

That would be roughly consistent with the title and not a totally absurd thing to happen in the world.

This is exactly what I thought q when I first read the title.

Indeed, having locations internally represented in software with a resolution of nanometers is as ridiculous as having your calendar's internal times represented as milliseconds since some arbitrary moment more than fifty years ago!

Indeed, but you can easily imagine a software glitch over what looks like a single location but which the computer sees as two separate ones.

I don’t think dying in your 30s has been normal in the Western world anytime In the last 500 years. Remember all those life expectancy mean statistics were heavily dragged down by the huge infant mortality stats.

If your comment was more talking about the Stone Age or something, I apologize for misinterpreting :)

Infant and mother mortality stats.

The idea that most people more than ~120 years ago died in their 30s or 40s is a popular misconception. LEAB (Life expectancy at birth) used to be in the mid-30s, but this was largely due to a bimodal distribution of deaths: a large number dying during childbirth, infancy, or early childhood, and a lot at more typical old age (60-70, still a bit lower than is common in much of the west today, but you get the idea). If you made it past puberty, there were pretty good odds of you making it to old age.

100%. I carried this misconception after high school and college and was surprised to learn it’s completely wrong. There’s a name for the old-age end of the bimodal distribution: longevity. Longevity is the natural lifespan of people who don’t die of any early mortality factors. Most people who have the misconception are accidentally conflating life expectancy with longevity. A few unscrupulous peddlers of false hope, like Ray Kurzweil for example, intentionally conflate life expectancy with longevity to reinforce the misconception. As I was learning about longevity I started talking to my anthropologist brother about it, and he was like, oh yeah, people who don’t die from war or disease or infection have always lived to be about 80 years old for all of known history. He mentioned there’s plenty of written evidence from, e.g. Socrates’ day, and also lots of human remains that support it from ten thousand years ago.

Well we have a lot less disease and infection now!

This is why life expectancy has gone up, while longevity has mostly remained unchanged (for at least thousands of years). Longevity represents the best we can do, and life expectancy can’t exceed longevity. Life expectancy will asymptotically approach longevity as medicine improves.

I think it's worth noting that we (in the west) have a lot less of most diseases and infections now, stuff like polio, plague, malaria.

I don't suffer from delusions that we have accurate data on conditions like obesity and T2D going back to the middle ages, but we have seen incidence rates of these kinds of disease explode upwards over the last century.

I'd be interested in more detailed data broken down by disease over time.

Aside from infant morality, don't forget the massive death load from things like accidental death, famine, and maternal mortality.

E.g. from Wikipedia, female life expectancy from age 15 in Britain in the 1400-1500s century was 33 years (so reaching 48 years of age).

...and also bubonic plague.

Cancer was first documented around 3000 BC, and has been studied for a long time. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr...

At the enterprise level my understanding is that PlanetScale can operate within your environment directly instead of as a pure service.

this is correct

bold of you to assume I'd ever read an article rather than just skimming the comments