unicolet.org

Via https://www.anildash.com/2025/09/09/how-tim-cook-sold-out-steve-jobs/ There's no point in having fuck-you money in the bank if you never say "fuck you"!

I'm kind of surprised Slack hasn't yet put out an AI feature. The potential is immense, imagine how many times the same question is asked and answered in a workspace... 

This year my xmas gift is the MP3 version of a seminal album of the '90s which is impossible to find on streaming services: Kruder & Dorfmeister's The K&D Sessions TM It does sound great!

Mostly out of curiosity and desire to learn I've tried to run open models locally on both LM studio and ollama, but I quickly realized the limitations intrinsic to my hardware (just a high-spec'd laptop). Curious to try AWS Bedrock I eventually settled on the following setup: litellm exposing Bedrock models (Qwen, atm) locally on an OpenAPI-compatible API (yes it's a mouthful). This works great for any tool that can be configured to use an OpenAPI-compatible API like Quill meetings . Getting VS code to work with this setup was more challenging as it required VS Code Insiders (the bleeding edge, AFAIU) and even in that case VS Code tends to forget settings or use them inconsistently. For example it always uses copilot for the inline code actions. llm  required some tweaking too, in particular the setting suggested in this comment . I am very impressed with litellm which provides accurate usage tracking per team or account. The potential for offering llm access on an interna...

 Perspective is worth 80 IQ points Alan Kay’s line “Perspective is worth 80 IQ points” isn’t about literal intelligence. He’s pointing out that the ability to shift viewpoint, reframe a problem, or see a system from a higher level often produces more insight than raw analytical horsepower. Many problems look hard only because they’re being viewed from a narrow frame. Change the frame, and what looked complex becomes obvious or solvable. Why Perspective Feels Like “+80 IQ” A few mechanisms: Reframing reduces complexity. Seeing the structure of a problem—rather than its surface detail—often collapses the difficulty. It mimics what we associate with “smartness.” Most people get stuck in the default frame. They try to optimize inside an assumption instead of questioning it. Someone who steps outside can leapfrog them without being “smarter.” Systems thinking detects leverage points. Understanding how components interact exposes shortcuts, invariants, and constraints th...

My notes on:  https://jenson.org/games/ which I found via:  https://youtu.be/1fZTOjd_bOQ?si=kCGSE2uNczIJjiQ- Alan Kay quote is hard to understand until an insight from a user test “changed my perspective”. First learning (on the surface, we go deeper and beyond it) pretty soon: Games have the ability to force situations, such as running into a canyon and having nowhere to go but up a ladder. Apps on the other hand, usually have the opposite, offering a broad toolkit of choices. Games, I thought, can exploit narrative to force situations which made their life easier. However this does not mean that games have it easy, on the contrary most games fail: You have to design a great game to get people to have the confidence that practicing is worthwhile. And we start going deeper right away now: Raph convinced me to forgo any quick and easy ‘cookbook of tricks’ approach to this problem and go deeper and understand better how games are built, from the bottom up First bit of wisdom: M...