You've put a lot into this, that much is clear. However, this suffers from the usual problem of the era of abundant bespoke tooling: It's hard to figure out what this even does. I read the README, the examples, and the scoring function, but I still couldn't easily articulate this in a meaningful way to a third person. If you want adoption, you need to solve for this first.
Your README's first few lines, which is as far as you should expect most people will go, mentions a 2-minute explainer video. But it's actually 45 seconds. Why say otherwise? Hyperbole, maybe, but to me it raises the question of whether any of this was QC'd by a human at all before publishing. If your headline marketing material is in question, I'm inclined to make assumptions about the rest of it as well.
Edit: I should add, I'm glad I didn't check out your website before commenting, because I probably would've been too intimidated to comment. My career and expertise wouldn't measure up to yours. I do stand by my thoughts though, I think we often get so deep into our own domain and needs that we can briefly lose sight of our average audience. I’ll try this out myself on a website repo I'm updating and share how it went later on.
Part 2: Using it went pretty well, in my case there wasn't much in the way of improvements identified, but it's a fairly simple static Astro site with minimal JS used to market a business, so there's far less surface area than this is maybe intended for. It looks like it works well. Tighten up the messaging on the repo and I think you've got a good tool.
This feedback is true gold. Thank you for this, I’ll make these tweaks to increase readability.
I also love just asking Claude to look at the repo and decide how it should use it. Have had a few times where it said “project not a good fit” which in and of itself is a good sign
Queensland allows residents to see the details of offenders in our local area, but you need to provide extensive ID to do so, and leaking that information is itself a crime. Daniel's Law was introduced in 2025 so this is pretty recent.
I think they're saying that brutalist architecture feels out of context in Brisbane's weather, whereas the gloomy dreary feeling of the building fits in perfectly in the former USSR's gloom
It'd be extraordinary compelling to genuinely have a unified mechanism to explain depression treatments, but I am not qualified to make heads or tails of the research. Wondering what the take of those with relevant experience is on this?
Not an expert, but the standout thing about ketamine in particular is that it targets an entirely different neurotransmitter pathway than almost all traditional anxiety and depression meds. Traditionally, people treating serious depression or anxiety rotate through a variety of drugs that all hit same small set of neurotransmitters and settle on the one that works the best/sucks the least.
This is why people get excited about ketamine and psychedelics as therapeutics. Otherwise, we're just sitting around waiting for the next round of "new" drugs that manipulate the same pathways as all the old drugs (and carry much of the same risks).
There are actually phone numbers that post all text messages they receive online automatically. Personally this has never worked for me though because all the services I tried to sign up for someone else had already used that number
What an absurd take. If we use FLOPS as a crude measure, the Air would be comparable to the leading supercomputers of ~1999/2000. There's many reasons why that's a very poor comparison but ignoring the absolute insanity of the raw compute available in a pocketable, thin, battery-powered handheld that you can buy literally this week, is ridiculous. Modern smartphones are nothing short of sci-fi when compared to even recent living memory. We're simply used to them due to their sheer ubiquity.
The A19 GPU doesn't even have hardware support for FP64, which is the precision used for TOP500. No, it is not comparable to leading supercomputers of 1999/2000.
Your README's first few lines, which is as far as you should expect most people will go, mentions a 2-minute explainer video. But it's actually 45 seconds. Why say otherwise? Hyperbole, maybe, but to me it raises the question of whether any of this was QC'd by a human at all before publishing. If your headline marketing material is in question, I'm inclined to make assumptions about the rest of it as well.
Edit: I should add, I'm glad I didn't check out your website before commenting, because I probably would've been too intimidated to comment. My career and expertise wouldn't measure up to yours. I do stand by my thoughts though, I think we often get so deep into our own domain and needs that we can briefly lose sight of our average audience. I’ll try this out myself on a website repo I'm updating and share how it went later on.
Part 2: Using it went pretty well, in my case there wasn't much in the way of improvements identified, but it's a fairly simple static Astro site with minimal JS used to market a business, so there's far less surface area than this is maybe intended for. It looks like it works well. Tighten up the messaging on the repo and I think you've got a good tool.
reply