I'm a bit sceptical about yet another project from JetBrains. I got quite excited about both WriterSide and Fleet - I think both are dead? I'm not sure about Fleet. Isn't there a testing tool that got killed too?
From the video I can't work out what this tool does. Does it have actual GUI tools in it, or is everything prompt powered? What if you just want to change a fill colour - do you need to use AI, or can you edit it? How do you refer to single GUI items? On figma you click or use the menu from the left? Do you have support for components?
Can you start a new website from scratch on it?
How do you plug the AI in? Is there an MCP server, or is this just with Jetbrains AI agent - that's been a bit frustrating so far. Can you run it on copilot or will companies have to onboard a new AI tool.
I'm sceptical of single study medical research and especially that which involves the crazily political world of birth. It might be better to wait until the Cochrane collaboration does a meta analysis on multiple studies before anyone changes what they are currently doing.
Skin-to-skin for children has been studied for a few decades, and the consensus is strongly in its favor, after a pile of studies have all pointed in the same direction.
This study isn't "skin to skin care is good." This study was aimed to answer the question, as contextualized, "We have established that skin-to-skin care for healthy children is good (pile of studies); for unhealthy children that have been stabilized is good (pile of studies), but is it good for kids that are still unstable? (controversy)"
"I'm skeptical of a single study" is only a valid criticism if you're familiar with the body of scientific literature. Otherwise, what you're actually saying is, "I'm skeptical of results that pop magazines and press releases have only surfaced to my attention once" - which is a shoddy mechanism for curating your knowledge.
Your response is great. Thanks for sharing information about the literature and way more context.
> Otherwise, what you're actually saying is, "I'm skeptical of results that pop magazines and press releases have only surfaced to my attention once" - which is a shoddy mechanism for curating your knowledge.
At the risk of nitpicking, this seems like a good principle to follow? Like, assuming skeptical means "I won't instantly buy into this being as great as the pop magazine claims" rather than "I will strongly presuppose that this is untrue because it was in a pop magazine".
I think it's a poor mechanism because "appeared once in a pop magazine" isn't a good signal for knowledge curation regardless of whether you assign it a positive or negative weight; especially when the original comment implied (to my reading) "the topic has only surfaced once, therefore the existing knowledgebase is only one study."
The existence of a single study in pop literature is a very poor predictor of whether the study was accurate or not, and a very poor predictor of whether there are other studies on the topic. So I think it a mistake to substitute "it has come to my attention once" for "it has only been studied once."
It is however a very good indicator that the pop portrayal is inaccurate though!
At least this is 'med life style news', arguably not really 'pop', by the time this hits, I don't know, 'ifl science' or whatever, Techcrunch for general science/medicine, I wouldn't count on 'with unstable' in the headline, or perhaps even the body.
The conclusion may be 'keeping baby warm' increases the survival rate. I agree with you, these researches are too vague, there are so many parameters, correlation maybe.
On the contrary. Just because something attracts money doesn't mean it adds value. In fact, the opposite can be true.
In this case, CryptoKitties purchases represent money that was diverted from intrinsically valuable goods and services: cars, fruit, haircuts, shoes, software, and so on.
Every dollar spent on CryptoKitties was a dollar that didn't go to a farmer, a plumber, or a musician. That's not creating economic value; it's destroying it.
