I committed to the fully agentic approach for a while. No code by hand!
Setting aside the "capability" of the tools, I knew it was the wrong direction after a couple months or so in. I specifically remember during a large feature implementation running out of tokens for my 5 hour window or whatever, and I just couldn't continue on my own. Mostly due to laziness (I'll just wait till tomorrow when my limit resets!), but I also picked up on my first big whiff of skill rot / atrophy brewing, and that made feel uncomfortable.
I just don't see this fully agentic approach going well long term. Talk about the ultimate dependency!! If the lights are "turned off" for whatever reason - outages, cost increases, or the agentic velocity finally reaches a complexity tipping point and you've lost control and understanding of your system to the point the agents are making things worse, whatever it is - do you really expect to be able to turn back the clock and step in to code at the productivity level and output you used to when you actually... wrote code?
All concerns, while the real goal is stated right in the article:
"With this new approach, he says, experts in many fields can gain a deeper understanding of AI so they can better harness it. Meanwhile, computing experts are gaining greater exposure to the work of their counterparts in other fields. That exposure is giving the technologists a better understanding of how to create and train AI tools to better serve others."
I'm sure they will have many meetings about future meetings.
This is nothing new. The most socialistic era of US history was the 1950s with a 90% federal income tax bracket capping yearly income to a max of 5mil a year in 2026 dollars. That is how we ended the great depression.
When a CEO cannot personally get richer by cutting wages, understaffing, and outsourcing; all of those things stop. This is why republicans called everyone a communist back in the 1950s. It is sad that people remember mccarthyism, but completely forget the socialistic tax policy that ended the great depression and made it possible to own a home out of high school while raising a family off a single income.
Even a billionar has the right for Presumption of innocence.
I'm not surprised per se that people act like this, i'm surprised that someone on hn is not capable having a proper discussion about it and being very unreflective.
Its not that i have any impact on the world.
And yes pedophilia is a big issue, that doesn't mean i can't hear what someone like bill gates says especially as it cost so little to read a website of him.
He is not an actor were I stop going to their movies. For one german actor for example i wrote an email to a theater because they still had his picture on the wall.
From a European perspective, one has long wondered what this government actually considers NOT to be terrorism. The violent storming of a national symbol of democracy is clearly not one of them.
This doesn't exactly make one want to spend their next vacation in the USA – even though, admittedly, we have our own problems here.
I love the idea of getting out of the "office" (in my case work from home) to meet people for real eye contact, discussions without technology, etc. I went through my LinkedIn contacts a year ago and filtered to those in my city. From that list I contacted a couple of people each day in an effort to meet for coffee, lunch, or adult beverages. It was excellent to have good conversations without a phone or laptop in hand.
We simply need to bring back that 90% federal income tax bracket we had in the 1950s. If we had the same tax policy today, a CEO or investor would be limited to 5 million dollars a year in earnings. This is what fixed everything.
If a CEO cannot personally get richer by cutting wages, cutting staffing, and outsourcing; all of it stops. That was the secret of affordability. Don't let a thousand rich people own everythjng. Tax them so we can have millions of working millionaires instead of 900 non-working billionaire elites.
As those 1950s taxes and post 1929 financial regulations were cut in the following decades, the wealth inequality that led to the great depression has returned.
If its just a home router it should work, so the only possible problem is the IOS version of your iPad, since the protocol used for the UDP download is still new. try using a different device either an android or a pc
In October 2025, Mental Health Swims closed.
It had started in 2019 as one person's swim on a beach in Swansea. By the end it had over 150 swim locations across the UK, more than 350 trained volunteer hosts, funding from the People's Postcode Lottery and it had hosted a reception in the Houses of Parliament for Mental Health Awareness Week. The board announced closure after more than a year of trying to secure core funding.
What interested me wasn't the closure. It was what happened next.
It turns out that 2 of the 5 kept meeting, even a year later. That was my first finding.
Time to look at 5 other places.
Why I was looking
I'd tried to start a group myself. A casual Thursday evening pub drinks group in Southend, for people in their twenties and thirties, because the existing local clubs skewed older or were built around walking and cycling. I set a threshold - twenty people interested within three weeks, then we go.
I posted it in local Facebook groups, commented on a Meetup group, put it on Nextdoor, made an Instagram video. All the classic cold outreach tactics. Eight people signed up on the first day. Eleven within a week. The Nextdoor post got 1,900 views and produced 0 convsersions. It never reached twenty.
My first read on that is that I didn't market it well enough. Having now looked at how organisations that do this successfully actually do it, I think that read is wrong, and the real answer is more interesting.
Six ways to start a group
The Bluetits Chill Swimmers. Cold water swimming, started in Pembrokeshire in 2014, now over 150 groups - "flocks" - and around 100,000 members.
To start one, you find one friend who isn't an immediate family member. You both fill in a form. You both attend a group video call with the founder. Then HQ creates the Facebook group for you. Then you just show up.
I found that odd: there is no guidance on launching. Nothing on promotion, nothing on getting your first members. They’re told to do zero marketing essentially.
Admins are even told they are not responsible for organising the swims, and that when a swim is posted it shouldn't be set up as a Facebook Event or given a poster, because that would imply an officially organised event.
And yet it works. The centre sets up a few new groups every year, and the majority stay active for years: https://thebluetits.co/pages/join-our-social-swim-community.
The findings here are:
Marketing isn’t actually key.Word of mouth seems to be the key here.
People create new groups only after trying it out e.g.On holiday. Never from cold.
The four things
Now for the conclusions. All of these groups work not because of brilliant marketing but because they manage to group together 4 things. Someone has to find:
1. A co-founder or small team. A solo founder generally fails here. Or if they do succeed the group dies when they move town.
2. A fixed recurring slot. Same day, same place, indefinitely.
3. A digital group to join. Somewhere to say “I’m interested.” Usually a Facebook group or a whatsapp group.
4. A pool of people waiting to become members. From a university, an existing interest within the population or a growing trend.
If you have all these, word of mouth or passive discovery brings the casual members to you.
You can think what you like about MIT, but at least they're giving it some thought, however perfunctory it may seem. Many German universities prefer to try and ignore the issue and hope for the best.
So this is the US government acting at the behest of neonazis: "
According to one anti-fascist research group, “Some of the most well-known NoBlogs sites belong to researchers who solely report on far-right hate and radicalization, never doing anything aside from showing you what exists.”
"
in their newest crusade generally championing the concept of fascism (which is what you get when you declare yourself anti-anti-fascist, as should be immediately evident to anyone with the ability to follow basica boolean logic).
I think our justice system is arguably the bad guy here.
Parents need to tell their kids to put the phone down.
Instead they abnegate this duty, and lawyers treat Facebook like a money piñata.
Doritos make people fat, so why shouldn't we sue Frito Lay for billions?
Cars allow you to drive fast and crash, let's sue carmakers.
And so on...
Our justice system is just one big scam. It finds a big, rich corporation, greedy plaintiffs looking for a lottery ticket, and a "jury of peers" in friendly jurisdiction.
Facebook sucks but if your child is addicted to their phone take the phone away.
The litigation lottery our legal system has devolved into is a total joke. This is a nightmare for second and third order effects.
Setting aside the "capability" of the tools, I knew it was the wrong direction after a couple months or so in. I specifically remember during a large feature implementation running out of tokens for my 5 hour window or whatever, and I just couldn't continue on my own. Mostly due to laziness (I'll just wait till tomorrow when my limit resets!), but I also picked up on my first big whiff of skill rot / atrophy brewing, and that made feel uncomfortable.
I just don't see this fully agentic approach going well long term. Talk about the ultimate dependency!! If the lights are "turned off" for whatever reason - outages, cost increases, or the agentic velocity finally reaches a complexity tipping point and you've lost control and understanding of your system to the point the agents are making things worse, whatever it is - do you really expect to be able to turn back the clock and step in to code at the productivity level and output you used to when you actually... wrote code?