Yes, likewise! I've bounced off their developer portal several times, and I've colleagues who note they're extraordinarily difficult to integrate with.
I will gladly invest in a more accessible developer ecosystem.
I'll be working on a video walkthrough this weekend. Here are some screenshots of the dashboard.
It has 3 main features including auto fix which detects issues with your yard and generates solutions you can just click to apply, the smart fix and Preset tools which both support masking or brushing on the image to select areas to modify. The run with very context aware models to perform edits on the image.
Once a system has a sufficient number of users, it no longer matters what you "explicitly" promised in your documentation or contract.
Hyrum’s Law: all observable behaviors of your system will eventually be depended on by someone.
Even if you tell users not to rely on a specific side effect, once they discover it exists and find it useful, that behavior becomes an implicit part of your system's interface. As a result, engineers often find that "every change breaks someone’s workflow," even when that change is technically a bug fix or a performance improvement.
Reliance on unpromised behavior is something I was also introduced to as Kranz’s Law (or Scrappy's Law*), which asserts that things eventually get used for their inherent properties and effects, without regard for their intended purpose.
"I insisted SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 be invented for BSD. People were grabbing system signals to mean what they needed them to mean for IPC, so that (for example) some programs that segfaulted would not coredump because SIGSEGV had been hijacked.
This is a general principle — people will want to hijack any tools you build, so you have to design them to either be un-hijackable or to be hijacked cleanly. Those are your only choices."
—Ken Arnold in The Art Of Unix Programming
You may be surprised to learn that headlines actually lead to an even larger body of text called an "article" which contains, among other things, references to the scale of the issue named named in the headline.
I just gotta say, the coil noise on my open-case 3090 has been a fascinating and joyful complement to my generative experiments.
Alongside `nvtop`, coil noise has given me a visceral sense of the texture for different workloads. Sorry I haven't done a more rigorous analysis, but I'm certain it helps me debug.
Our concept of "Tailwind itself" should encompass, really, the economic foundations in which it's ensconced and from which it grew, even if it grew "on spec."
Ie, without the promise of some path to profitability, eg the plus package, the mere library cannot justify itself. So are we to stop building FOSS on spec?
reply