My 16-month theanine self-experiment
dynomight.net
16-Bit to 1-Bit: Visual KV Cache Quantization for Efficient Multimodal LLMs
arxiv.org
AI tools are spotting errors in research papers
nature.com
Presenterm: Markdown Slideshows in the Terminal
github.com
Building an open-source Wi-Fi Mac layer for the ESP32
esp32-open-mac.be
Helpcare AI (YC F24) Fullstack Engineer
docs.google.com
Show HN: I built an app to get daily wisdom from Mr. Worldwide
daale.club
Online Embedded Rust Simulator
wokwi.com
SMBC Parts Ways with Hiveworks
smbc-comics.com
Stem cell therapy trial reverses "irreversible" damage to cornea
newatlas.com
I've been using Claude Code for a couple of days
twitter.com
H3: For indexing geographies into a hexagonal grid, by Uber
h3geo.org
The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
wired.com
How to know when it's time to go
bitfieldconsulting.com
Goravel: A Go framework inspired by Laravel
goravel.dev
"Big 3" science fiction magazines including Asimov's and Analog acquired
jasonsanford.substack.com
Roald Dahl on the death of his daughter (2015)
telegraph.co.uk
Commodore 64 PETSCII Image (2022)
medium.com
Discovering errors in Donald Knuth's TAOCP
glthr.com
Discworld Rules
contraptions.venkateshrao.com
Deploy from local to production (self-hosted)
github.com
I think the article creates a false dichotomy between top down and bottoms up approach to understanding a topic. In the end, looking at a project from multiple perspectives will give you clarity.
A quick top-down view provides scaffolding to latch onto. A follow up deep dive will poke holes in your assumptions or reinforce your current understanding.
As the article mentioned, always staying at a high level can provide a fake understanding but I think just doing a deep dive slows understanding higher level abstractions and purpose. Constantly undulating between the two or having reports who can provide the right details are the best approaches I've seen from mentors.