15 years as a full-stack AI engineer, including onsite engineering and team leadership for US enterprises ADP and Time Warner Cable. I ship agentic AI products in 2 to 3 weeks, not months.
What I build:
-> Multi-agent systems with LangGraph, CrewAI, OpenAI Agents SDK, and AutoGen. Tool use, handoffs, planning loops, and guardrails that hold up past the demo.
-> Production RAG pipelines with pgvector, reranking, and evaluation. Not just a notebook.
-> AI-integrated full-stack apps on Next.js, Supabase, and Stripe. From MVP to scale.
Best fit: founders building agentic AI products who need senior engineering judgment, not just code. I have led and mentored engineering teams, so I can own architecture decisions and bring the rest of your team up to speed.
Open to fixed-bid projects, ongoing contract work, or fractional technical lead engagements. Competitive rates for the quality delivered.
I think the main point of the article is sound, the idea that arguing with people puts you in an adversarial position with the person, even if you think you are debating the merits of the ideas.
This is frustrating to those of us who are focused on the project or the task - to try and find the best way to do something and come at the conversation from a place that feels like logic, and be met with ego and emotion.
But I think the overall conclusion lacks subtlety. I don’t think the best response is to disengage completely, then say “I told you so” and/or swoop in to profit off of the mistake.
So yes, recognizing that you also have an ego and can benefit from feedback but just take it a little further. Ask clarifying questions about why their solution is better, come from a place of collaboration rather than competition. Have them explain why their solution is better and once it’s clear you are collaborating, voice your concerns and weight the pros and cons together.
I know this is a simplistic version of how these conversations actually happen, but it’s an example of the fact that you can make more progress by recognizing some subtlety.
And google shouldn't give any special treatment to their own products when ranking search results.
That said, a price comparison tool is essentially a specialized search engine, and it makes a lot of sense to gather price comparison information while indexing for search, and I don't think having price comparison built in to a search engine is necessarily a bad thing.
If they take the most absurd interpretation or nitpick about irrelevant details that doesn't take away from the crux of the point you're making, are they really intelligent?
Or are you simply dealing with people that "don't have what it takes" to do better?
They simply don't have the faculties to make a better argument, it's the best they can do, and the best they can do is just not enough.
This synthetic cell is based entirely on common Earth biology, just stripped down to a semi-functional "MVP". So there's no reason to expect it to do anything other than "what existing bacteria can already do but worse".
There is some pressure for genome compactness, especially in prokaryotes. But, like any pressure, there are tradeoffs to shrinking the genome. The extra DNA isn't "waste" - it's often buying something somewhere.
Honestly, I don't really know AutoGluon, if this does xgboost tuning that's good.
I do still think ELO scores are still a way to obscure results though. For all we know this is like 0.1% better than a "normal" approach on like 70% of tasks and a tire fire on others.
It might be bunk. But it’s more than the usual EU nonsense of convening a committee to propose a plan to think hard about something so Hungary can veto it in 2045.
This is a good reason to argue with people! Forcing yourself to look critically at your own positions via debate is a key self-improvement method. Simply not engaging and never having a back-n-forth is no way to improve. Feedback, critical self-evaluation, and more feedback.
Ofc, that's not encouragement to flame people on the internet or in-person.
I say this with a lot of love: The vibecoded applications in your demo reek of AI slop design.
This isn't a critique of your product. It's just that the a beige-orange theme, the pill components, and the left-border highlight give me that visceral reaction as reading a paragraph littered with em dashes and "not X but Y." It makes me take you less seriously.
Box2D is still pretty darn good! Definitely recommended for 2D physics game projects. The C APIs for Box2D and now Box3D are just so nice to work with.
I am a Staff/Principal engineer with 18+ years of experience building mission-critical enterprise software across integration-heavy B2B, B2C, and IoT environments.
What sets my background apart is that I do not just build applications, I also build the underlying platforms behind them. Over the years I have built:
- Nabu: a low-code enterprise integration and web application platform with 10+ years of production use
- Glue: a custom scripting language used for automation, orchestration, and test execution at scale
- Neatify: a polyglot formatter in Rust using Tree-sitter and Rhai
- Polymr and MCP tooling: LLM agent infrastructure focused on control, orchestration, and deep tool integration
I am looking for a long-term Staff/Principal IC role focused on platform architecture, developer experience, custom tooling, orchestration systems, or applied AI infrastructure.
You can't really break the laws of thermodynamics because they are statistical laws, not absolute ones.
When you have 10 atoms bouncing around you can pretty easily "break" the laws because you don't have the statistical mass for aggregate behaviors (what we call the laws) to arise.
So it's not really a law that entropy must increase, it's more a 99.999...% (envision a lot of 9's there) chance it will, and the number of 9's is proportionate to the number of energy points in the system.
> ... there is actually an ever-increasing number of things that used to have an absolute right (scientifically proven) answer that become controversial. Climate change. Vaccines. Whether the earth is round - that kind of stuff.
I think there are multiple things here that need to be disentangled. The first is that just because science "proves" something that doesn't mean the political, civil, or economic path is nearly as clear cut. While there certainly are people who just deny these things outright there's also the camp that accepts the scientific result but disputes how to deal with it as a society.
Second I've seen an alarming rise in what I would characterize as scientism, a belief structure around science itself where the "acolytes" of science do not understand the science themselves, but use it to reinforce their own worldview in the same way that deniers (heretics really) use other sources to reinforce their worldview. I have seen this play out within my own social circle as people will defer to experts as if they are a clerical class with divine authority to determine ultimate truth. To give an example in a much less controversial arena, how often have you witnessed people adopting fad diets because the "science" shows X is good even though the actual backing papers, that no adopter has read, are much more murky at best? This is an understandable consequence of having a limited lifespan where not everyone can know everything therefore heuristics must be used to comprehend the world, but the flexible heuristic which can lead to a change of opinion can be swapped out for a rigid belief that permits no change of opinion unfortunately.
Last I think this ultimately stems from what F.A. Hayek called constructivist rationalism[1], the idea that we can rationally construct our own social order. I share your own concern about mistakes that affect all of us specifically regarding philosophies that adopt constructivist rationalism such as the family of collectivist ideologies (socialism and the like) which are currently on the rise. My conclusion is that civilizations will evolve according to the culmination of all individual actors' actions and I personally have a limited role to play, although I am a classical liberal. Your last question unfortunately can lead some to conclude that a much more dictatorial society is necessary to produce a result that may itself not be possible and instead lead to an even worse result than the alternative.
[1] I highly recommend The Fatal Conceit by Hayek if you want to challenge assumptions your own worldview likely rests on without even knowing it.
It used to be that streaming services were an excellent option even over torrenting because of the ease of access and use.
Now we're not even getting to retain what we buy, this is not a streaming service, these were sold to users individually.
We've gone full circle where I honestly believe pirating is a far better offering.
The root of the problem is these ridiculous content licensing agreements, it should be very very obvious to the customer when they're buying that "Hey, you will own this until X date when our content licensing agreement is finished"
I once had a manager who was extremely quiet and very good at winning arguments. They too would never argue. Instead they would present themselves in as supportive of a way as possible, and then just ask questions. There was never a point in the questioning where he would declare you made a mistake. Instead, he would just remain silent and maybe write something down. There was really no way to counter it without being right.
> Apple very heavily relies on the claim that they have no such back door
And, at least in the case of their private cloud compute, they encourage third party audit of their claims and even provide a virtual research environment running an instance of their PCC on your mac.
The UK explicitly requesting a backdoor to iCloud's advanced data protection forcing Apple to pull the service instead also tells me their claims are legit.
It's certainly possible a backdoor exists in hardware instead, or elsewhere in the stack but given Apple's surprising relative openness for how they implement their privacy products & the research papers they put out I'm inclined to believe them for now. (I say relative because its not open source, which is the only way to be 100% certain, but their research papers are surprisingly in depth).
> as soon as you state a position, you’re arguing it.
That’s true, but is that the meaning of argue that the author was referring to? Do you see a difference between arguing for something (making a case) and arguing with someone (contradicting them and saying they’re wrong)?
• semantic video search using multimodal embeddings
• multi-agent systems integrating LLMs with internal data, docs, and APIs
Experience helping teams move LLM / agent workflows (incl. LangGraph/Chain) from prototype >> production.
Previously founded and exited a SaaS company serving Fortune 500 brands (pricing intelligence & channel compliance), built and led distributed team of 100+.
Remote: Yes (flexible with US/EU overlap)
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: Claude API, LangGraph, CrewAI, OpenAI Agents SDK, AutoGen, RAG pipelines, multi-agent orchestration, Python, FastAPI, Django, Node.js, PostgreSQL, pgvector, Next.js, React, TypeScript, Supabase, Stripe, AWS
Website: https://govindgupta.com
Email: govind@govindgupta.com
15 years as a full-stack AI engineer, including onsite engineering and team leadership for US enterprises ADP and Time Warner Cable. I ship agentic AI products in 2 to 3 weeks, not months.
What I build: -> Multi-agent systems with LangGraph, CrewAI, OpenAI Agents SDK, and AutoGen. Tool use, handoffs, planning loops, and guardrails that hold up past the demo.
-> Production RAG pipelines with pgvector, reranking, and evaluation. Not just a notebook.
-> AI-integrated full-stack apps on Next.js, Supabase, and Stripe. From MVP to scale.
Best fit: founders building agentic AI products who need senior engineering judgment, not just code. I have led and mentored engineering teams, so I can own architecture decisions and bring the rest of your team up to speed.
Open to fixed-bid projects, ongoing contract work, or fractional technical lead engagements. Competitive rates for the quality delivered.
Best way to reach me: govind@govindgupta.com