ๆญฃๅœจๅŠ ่ฝฝ่ง†้ข‘...

่ง†้ข‘ๅŠ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ

Just a reminder at how cool immersion cooling can look like. This past week at Computex I've had a couple of conversations about it, if it's good or relevant. The short answer is that even with the PFAS removed, and it being on display for 10+ years, no-one wants...

157,149 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰ โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 ๆก่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๆš‚ๆ— ่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๅŽŸๅง‹ๅธ–ๅญ็š„่ฏ„่ฎบๅฐ†ๆ˜พ็คบๅœจ่ฟ™้‡Œ

็›ธๅ…ณ่ง†้ข‘

Taste is invisible until you try to write it down. This is probably my biggest lesson with AI building as of late. At Sundial, I get to work with really friggin' amazing analysts who know the art, and I see how much of our collective time now is now spent turning that art into playbooks or skills for an LLM. Encoding things like: "How would a great analyst actually look at this metric move?" or "What is ACTUALLY the interesting signal in this story versus noise?" or "How can we know if a product change actually moved the needle?" It's really humbling work! You write an instruction set. The LLM misses. You add more context. It still misses. You add even more. Now it's confused. You strip it back. Now it's too vague. You try a different framing. Better, but inconsistent. Works on Monday, fails on Tuesday. You go again. I've come to realize the gap between 70% quality and 95% quality is not 3 or 4 big things. It's more like 100s of small things. Which is exactly why you can't write an article about it, or copy it, or shortcut it! This gap *is* taste, quantified. The accumulated weight of a thousand small judgments you don't notice you're making, until you sit down to externalize them and realize you can't. Being good at something is not the same as being able to articulate why you're good at it. I now see two bottlenecks to making something better than today's generic AI: 1. Can you *see* what better looks like in the first place? 2. Even if you can see, can you *articulate* what that is in a way that the LLM can understand and systemize? #2 is now a new craft, the art of distilling the art. The people who can do it well are the ones building standout products.

Julie Zhuo

17,582 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 3 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

While I have premium I definitely want to do a long post breaking down the main scene from this show that I obsess with. There's so much that I feel could be learned from it. Not just for expansion animators either. There's honestly a LOT that can be learned from how this show directed its expansion scenes that can be applied to even safe for work animations. Obviously yes, the expansion alone is really good. What makes it so good though is just the fact that there's things you pick up on that you likely don't even realize until you re-watch. I'm using this scene as an example as it's not AS good I would say, but it still has a lot going for it. One thing I've always loved from it that I want to use in my own animations someday is that the expansion sort of comes in waves as opposed to one consistent growth. In a way, it makes it feel more natural while also selling how tight the top is getting. It could have been accompanied by showing the knot getting tighter or smaller with each growth. It's a small part of the animation but just that one thing already adds another layer to appreciate. It's not like most expansion scenes where there's very little outside of just "growing" on its own. There's a bunch of little things that subtly improve it without being obnoxious. The first expansion scene has WAY more that I want to talk about honestly. Far more than this one has. It will probably be a really long post now that I think about it...

FancyPlanks ๐Ÿ€

16,420 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 8 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰