【洞察】「LLM 加速了错误的部分」——这句话点破了 AI 编程工具的根本问题：它们加速了代码的「生成」（原本不是瓶颈），却无法加速代码的「理解、审查和维护」（真正的瓶颈）。与 a16z 报告的「10-20x 生产力提升」数据对照：生产力的提升是真实的，但被提升的维度是否是最应该被提升的维度，是一个完全不同的问题。

unpublished reply to u/kinga_forrester at https://www.reddit.com/r/vintageads/comments/1rvqt0e/comment/oayqqbd/

Rightly or wrongly I'm sure a vanishing number of people at that time would have held your view.

You've got to remember the historical context of this ad. During World War II all but one typewriter manufacturer in the US ceased production of typewriters and the one remaining was really producing machines for the military. This ad from 1943 actually says in tiny print at the bottom: "Royal is making bullets, and parts for airplane engines, propellers, machine guns, rifles." Civilian groups did drives to collect typewriters to send them to the war effort. Many of the extant and upcoming generation of typewriter repairmen went off to the war effort. All this against the backdrop of people being used to taking their machines (especially office ones in use 8 hours a day) in for service every year or so for cleaning and adjustment. Most office typewriters of the time were in use for an average of 3 years before requiring complete overhauls or replacement. In addition to all of the other things being rationed, typewriters and typewriter service were also being heavily rationed, particularly because the manpower and steel was being diverted heavily to the war effort.

At the time, most typewriters were in the $125-200 range which is the equivalent to about $1,500 now. They were trying to help people preserve their machines and functionality. This was at a time when almost any sizeable town in the US had at least one repair shop busy with work. A city the size of Chicago probably had several dozens of repair shops working full time and that likely dropped to just a few during the war. (There's only one now, and it's only been open for a few years; it also has a wait list of several months for service because it's so busy.)

The issue of typewriter preservation was so great during the war that the U.S. Navy produced a series of videos about their proper use and maintenance of them *and other expensive office machines of the time). See videos at https://boffosocko.com/2025/06/06/typewriter-use-and-maintenance-for-beginning-to-intermediate-typists/ The government also got involved in creating maintenance manuals like Basic Typewriter Care and Maintenance, Equipment Maintenance Series No. 1 (US FWIP, 1945) and repair manuals like War Department Technical Manual TM 37-305: Typewriter Maintenance (1944) which is essentially the same as the [1945 Ames manual[(https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/AmesVol1-Standards.pdf).

Comparing this with today when the general value of typewriters is almost nil and we're lucky to have a few dozen professional typewriter repair shops still operating, but the rate of retirements and deaths has long been outstripping the replacement rate and you'll understand why self-service is necessary. Even given this, the number of typewriter fora on the internet, Facebook, Reddit, etc. the amount of tinkering knowledge is almost cripplingly bad but seems to chug along. You'll notice that there are an awful lot of people just trying to identify their machines much less carry out the most basic repairs. The number of "broken machines" I've acquired in my collection that only needed the ribbon color selector set to something besides "stencil" is a sad indicator of the state of typewriter knowledge now, much less what it may have been in their heyday, tinkering or not.

Even by 1983 as typewriters were already beginning to feel the pressure from the computer business, books like Bryan Kravitz and Nancy Gorrell's Hints for a Happy Typewriter were attempting to educate people on proper maintenance and light repair before needing to rely on repair shops that were already starting to feel the pinch.

Incidentally, IBM wasn't what put most typewriter companies out of business. It was vicious competition caused by offshoring and the cheapening of parts and materials while computers in general did the rest. And as for all those typewriter repair shops: most began selling/servicing word processors, office machines like fax machines, photo copiers, dictaphones, and even computers.

Original post by u/shapeless_nodule at https://reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1rp5mh6/brother_deluxe_220_jp1_typewriter_request_for/

Hi All, In a fit overconfidence a couple of years ago, I bought a brother Deluxe 220 typewriter which worked fine other than being sticky. I duly tore it down, cleaned it up, oiled it, put it back together and... watched as nothing happened because somehow all of the springs had fallen out and were now sitting on my workbench. I then put it on a shelf and forgot about it, until starting a clearout last week. I would be deeply indebted to you if anyone who has this typewriter (or one of its sister models, as I understand it most of the JP-1 models are the same) take either some photos or a good video of exactly where all of the springs inside it connect to?

Reply: <br /> This is fairly steep ask, particularly when, for a few dollars, you can get the location of all the springs in the repair manual:<br /> - https://www.lulu.com/shop/ted-munk/the-brother-jp-1-typewriter-repair-bible/paperback/product-186kzqem.html?q=brother&page=1&pageSize=4 - https://twdb.sellfy.store/brother-typewriters/

for - adjacency - everyone's probably wrong - Donald Hoffman - science says 0% about ultimate reality - See the recent Youtube podcast of Diary of a CEO - interview with Donald Hoffman, where - he consistently argues that all scientific models teach us 0% about ultimate reality - https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A

Actual result is 24

Actual result is 24

Epstein quoting Norman Maclean, the author of The River Runs Through It and a professor at University of Chicago.

for - quote - right in what is affirmed, wrong in what is denied - John Stuart Mill - adjacency - worldviews - metaphor - blind men and the elephant

Why should the app even know let alone care about which version of the serialization format is in play?

for - quote - natural language acquisition - wrong guess - right answer - adjacency - natural language acquisition - open mind

> for - addiction - failure of rehabilitation is proof of the wrong model - the disease model - quote - the disease model of addiction is not only wrong, but harmful - Marc Lewis

for - quote - Doug Engelbart\ - collective IQ - status quo heading in the wrong direction - Indyweb dev - flipping the web - Doug Engelbart - Collective IQ - the Flipped web

quote - Doug Engelbart - If we can see how some of the basic assumptions that we bring to the development of computing technologies - lead us away from improvement in our ability to solve problems collectively, - we can reexamine those assumptions and chart a different course.

Indyweb dev - flipping the web - Doug Engelbart - Collective IQ - Flip the current web - the Flipped web - leverage the decentralized design of the original web via named content of IPFS network

for - climate crisis - psychology - wrong approach

summary - Climate scientist professor Mojib Latif explores why our best efforts at rapid intervention to deal with the climate crisis are failing - Near the end of the program, he interviews professor Henning Beck, a neuroscientist who suggests that human brains have evolved to be rewarded for securing more. - Dopamine is released when we get more and we have not designed our intervention strategies aligned with this basic property of our brains

for - transition - renewable energy - won't work - because - the price is wrong! - Brett Christopher - green energy - the price is wrong - transition - alternative to capitalism - book - The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism won't Save the Planet - Brett Christopher

summary - This book provides rationale for why capitalism won't scale renewable energy, but a public sector government approach might - What about the alternative of community-owned or cooperative-owned energy infrastructure? A pipe dream? - Is renewable energy just not profitable and therefore has to be subsidized? - Perhaps it could be seen as a stopgap to buy us time until fusion, deep geothermal or other viable, scalable options become widespread?

from - Planet Critical podcast - 6th Mass Extinction - interview with paleontologist Peter Brennan - https://hyp.is/3ss3Vj9vEe-iDX-3vRVlFw/docdrop.org/video/cP8FXbPrEiI/

for - book - The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism won't Save the Planet - Brett Christopher

to - book - The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism won't Save the Planet - Brett Christopher - https://hyp.is/h01Tyj9uEe-rEhuQgFWRuQ/www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/3069-the-price-is-wrong

for - key insight - low security at top AI labs - high risk of information theft ending up in wrong hands

for - physiology rescues evolutionary biology - Denis Noble

from - youtube - IAI interview - Why Dawkins is Wrong - Denis Noble

for - paper - Physiology restores purpose to evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - Raymond Noble - year - 2023

from - youtube - IAI interview - Why Dawkins is wrong - Denis Noble - https://hyp.is/eqKOYhVVEe-XVKuwMtOTTg/docdrop.org/video/dCLRKP9NW8I/

for - quote - being wrong - Denis Noble

quote - Being wrong - Denis Noble - If we didn't have people who were wrong - we wouldn't be where we are

read [[Pete Brown]] in On not engaging with people who are wrong on the internet

[[Dan Allosso]] in Vague or Wrong?

He highlights the David Allen quote from Getting Things Done: "It is better to be wrong than to be vague."

i think this would be a better way to deal w the graffiti problem in Portland. Stop it at the source. Instead, the city chooses to punish property owners.

One of my inquiries was for anecdotes regarding mistakes made between the twins by their near relatives. The replies are numerous, but not very varied in character. When the twins are children, they are usually distinguished by ribbons tied round the wrist or neck; nevertheless the one is sometimes fed, physicked, and whipped by mistake for the other, and the description of these little domestic catastrophes was usually given by the mother, in a phraseology that is some- [p. 158] what touching by reason of its seriousness.

Yeah, no.

overpopulation and degeneration caused by pacifism and civilization,<br /> and the long-overdue depopulation through mass murder on all levels.<br /> hell of a time to be alive... most of us will be dead soon. byee, i hate you all : D

• for: quote - when we get our story wrong, we get our future wrong, quote - Thomas Homer-Dixon

• quote

  • When we get our story wrong, we get our future wrong
• author: David Korten, quoted by Thomas Homer-Dixon
• date: 2021

lol, what?

• for: quote - Yuval Noah Harari, quote - nothing wrong with fictions

• quote -This God is very clearly a human invention. Now it doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. It doesn't certainly mean its unimportant.

• author: Yuval Noah Harari

"Wrong side of the Jordan" almost has the flavor of a biblical version of "the wrong side of the tracks".

A thought does come around on the "right way to think" This seems like the perfect opportunity for the differences in right or wrong and how the outcome of the infant might be affected by it. The right way to think seems more of a realization on what is socially normal or socially acceptable when thinking of the right way to think. Now that thought is the process figures out, but what must an adult realize?

The concept of structure really stands out to me. There is the everyday structure as I would call it in what this article is referring to, but what does it really mean by structure and if the structure is consider right or wrong. Everyone has a multitude of structure and what that looks like. For instance it reminds me of two set of parents where the kids have to figure out the structure in both houses. It shard because they go from one to another, but ending up becoming accustomed to both forms of structure. The author states, "structure gives rise to some patterns of observable evidence rather than others" Bad, & Olusegun, S (2015). Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning.

• comment
  • interesting analysis that it is the system that promotes the wrong type of people to positions of leadership.

这里忘乘0.75了，注意下，m应该是6.5..., 四舍五入是,7， 改过来应该是 m <- round(T^(1/3) * 0.75). T是回归时间的数量，我看ppt上是这样的。

• climate change actions
• Most of the climate actions are moving in the right direction.
• but they just aren’t aggressive enough yet to achieve the 1.5 C target.
• right direction, wrong speed

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>John Mount</span> in Good Stationery as a Tool of Thought | MZLabs (<time class='dt-published'>11/30/2022 13:11:31</time>)</cite></small>

Read 2022-12-31

61 Mortimer Jerome Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, Rev. and updated ed (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972), 45.

I see some of the sense of this footnote, which helps to establish some ethos by calling to mind Adler/Van Doren's classic, but this particular page in their text is really about paying enough attention not to fall asleep and thus doesn't underline Scheper's point as well as references to other portions of their book about goals and active reading.

that's a fun way to say this...

John Bye. (2022, January 6). Despite repeatedly being proven wrong by subsequent events, covid disinformation groups like HART have constantly been given a platform on TV and radio throughout the pandemic. Even after #hartleaks revealed many of their members to be anti-vax conspiracy cranks. 🧵2: Broadcast https://t.co/I3unq04gij [Tweet]. @_johnbye. https://twitter.com/_johnbye/status/1479202308139409413

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, January 24). I do think that if we had systematically kept score the quality of the ‘advice’ dispensed on Twitter would have been much better [Tweet]. @i. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1485592942156951552

Carl T. Bergstrom. (2021, December 16). Indeed. Https://t.co/5xa28la941 [Tweet]. @CT_Bergstrom. https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1471345956981391360

Miller, A. (2021, September 25). A Canadian COVID-19 study that turned out to be wrong has spread like wildfire among anti-vaxxers | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-study-error-anti-vaxxers-1.6188806

Good move. Rather than having 2 different methods, and requiring people to "go out of their way" to "opt in" to using chunks by using the longer-named javascript_packs_with_chunks_tag, they changed it to just use chunks by default, out of the box.

Now they don't need 2 similar but separate methods that do nearly the same, which makes things simpler and easier to understand (no longer have to stop and ask oneself, which one should I use? what's the difference?).

You can't get it "wrong" now because there's only one option.

And by switching that method to use the shorter name, it makes it clearer that that is the usual/common/recommended way to go.

Levine, E. (2021). Community standards of deception: Deception is perceived to be ethical when it prevents unnecessary harm. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/g5trb

Why not just make this document empty (besides a link) and link/redirect to the canonical version?

That way it is impossible for them to disagree.

Seems like this would be a very common need: once you switch to a custom failure track, you want it to stay on that track until the end!!!

The problem is that in a Railway, everything automatically has 2 outputs. But we really only need one (which is exactly what Path gives us). And you end up fighting the defaults when there are the automatic 2 outputs, because you have to remember to explicitly/verbosely redirect all of those outputs or they may end up going somewhere you don't want them to go.

The default behavior of everything going to the next defined step is not helpful for doing that, and in fact is quite frustrating because you don't want unrelated steps to accidentally end up on one of the tasks in your custom failure track.

And you can't use fail for custom-track steps becase that breaks magnetic_to for some reason.

I was finding myself very in need of something like this, and was about to write my own DSL, but then I discovered this. I still think it needs a better DSL than this, but at least they provided a way to do this. Much needed.

For this example, I might write something like this:

step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Track(:with_credit_card)

# Create the track, which would automatically create an implicit End with the same id.
Track(:with_credit_card) do
    step :authorize
    step :charge
end

I guess that's not much different than theirs. Main improvement is it avoids ugly need to specify end_id/end_task.

But that wouldn't actually be enough either in this example, because you would actually want to have a failure track there and a path doesn't have one ... so it sounds like Subprocess and a new self-contained ProcessCreditCard Railway would be the best solution for this particular example... Subprocess is the ultimate in flexibility and gives us all the flexibility we need)

But what if you had a path that you needed to direct to from 2 different tasks' outputs?

Example: I came up with this, but it takes a lot of effort to keep my custom path/track hidden/"isolated" and prevent other tasks from automatically/implicitly going into those steps:

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)

  # Can't use fail here or the magnetic_to won't work and  Track(:validation_error) won't work
  step :log_validation_error, magnetic_to: :validation_error,
    Output(:success) => End(:validation_error), 
    Output(:failure) => End(:validation_error) 
end

puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<End/:validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

Now attempt to do it with Path... Does the Path() have an ID we can reference? Or maybe we just keep a reference to the object and use it directly in 2 different places?

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1 < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
   validation_error_path = Path(end_id: "End.validation_error", end_task: End(:validation_error)) do
    step :log_validation_error
  end
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
end

o=Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1; puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

It's just too bad that:

• there's not a Railway helper in case you want multiple outputs, though we could probably create one pretty easily using Path as our template
• we can't "inline" a separate Railway acitivity (Subprocess "nests" it rather than "inlines")

I don't think we would/should really want to make this the "success" (Right) path and :credit_card be the "failure" (Left) track.

Maybe it's okay to repurpose Left and Right for something other than failure/success ... but only if we can actually change the default semantic of those signals/outputs. Is that possible? Maybe there's a way to override or delete the default outputs?

Good solution.

This could be both good and bad.

potential downside: If people only fix things locally, then they may be less inclined/likely to actually/also submit a merge request, and therefore it may be less likely that this actually (ever) gets fixed upstream. Which is kind of ironic, considering the stated goal "No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published." But if this obviates the need to create a pull request (does it), then this could backfire / work against that goal.

Requiring someone to fork a repo and push up a fix commit -- although a little extra work compared to just fixing locally -- is actually a good thing overall, for the community/ecosystem.

Ah, good, I see they touched on some of these points in the sections:

• Benefits of patching over forking
• When to fork instead

There seems to be an artificial pressure and a false assumption that the version that gets printed and included in the box be the "magic number" 1.00.

But I think there is absolutely nothing bad or to be ashamed of to have the version number printed in the rule book be 1.47 or even 2.0. (Or, of course, you could just not print it at all.) It's just being transparent/honest about how many versions/revisions you've made. 

Linked from: https://stackoverflow.com/a/36574982/47185