Lizzardspawn
No bio...
User ID: 594
Ok. Here is one from me. GPT-52 wrote it to spec. The idea was human generated. You can use freecad, build123 or cadquery. Or if some of the bigguys have internal script - also their software.
Task: Parametric 3D-Printable Enclosure for ESP32 DevKit + Expansion Board
Design a fully parametric, 3D-printable enclosure (base + hinged lid) using scripted CAD. The enclosure houses: an ESP32-WROOM DevKit (30-pin) plugged vertically into a 30-pin ESP32 expansion board
-
Expansion board (primary PCB) Size: 65 × 55 × 1.6 mm Mounting holes:4× Ø3.2 mm pattern 60 × 50 mm hole centers 2.5 mm from PCB edges PCB origin: lower-left corner, Z=0 at PCB bottom
-
DevKit board (secondary PCB) Size: 55 × 28 × 1.6 mm Plugged into expansion board via headers Vertical offset: 11 mm above expansion PCB Max component height above DevKit PCB: 10 mm
-
Enclosure requirements Wall thickness: 2.0 mm Base thickness: 2.4 mm Internal PCB edge clearance: 1.0 mm Internal corner fillets: ≥ 1.0 mm No supports; base printed flat
-
Standoffs 4 standoffs under expansion board mounting holes Height: 6 mm Boss OD: 8 mm Fastening: M3 through-hole + hex nut trap (nut: 5.5 mm AF, 2.4 mm thick)
-
Openings / features USB opening for DevKit USB connector Power opening (generic Ø8 mm) on side wall Ethernet opening 16 × 14 mm on side wall 2 LED holes Ø3 mm aligned to DevKit LED Assume connector centerlines are aligned to PCB mid-height unless otherwise stated
-
Lid and living hinge Lid attached on one long edge Printable living hinge for PETG hinge thickness: 0.4 mm hinge width: 16 mm include stress-relief geometry Lid must clear tallest component by ≥2 mm Lid includes a snap latch on the opposite edge
-
Parametric requirements Expose at least: PCB size Mount hole pattern Stack height Wall thickness Clearance Hinge thickness
You can see that in Russo Ukraine war - Russia is quite content with the way the war is going and is careful not kill any of the enemy leaders. Whereas Ukraine often targets generals in Moscow.
I desperately want to throw a dozen agents at a problem, but every time I look at the actual code I get frustrated: "Hey, I noticed this obvious code smell/antipattern in the code, plese fix." "Sure thing boss, I fixed it." "Ok, but I meant fix all the other instances of this bad pattern that I just noticed." "Oh, right you are boss." Then 15 minutes later, "Hi boss, I implemented this other issue you asked for, it's ready to be merged." "Did you use the correct pattern as discussed and as we added to the readme/dev docs/claude.md?" "Oh, right you are boss, I'll fix it in a jiffy." Over and over again. Yes this is with the latest claude code max/opus 4.6.
So - just like working with outsourced teams in the third world but cheaper.
Anyway - LLMs are not ready for agents yet. The biggest scope they deal with ok is single feature and you need to iterate couple of times.
Yup. Conventional warheads. If they just want to flatten Taiwan for example.
Do we have any reasonable estimates how many cruise/ballistic missiles China will be able to produce and how fast they could scale it if they put their minds to it. Right now Russia and Ukraine seems to be able to push production rates to single digits per day, but they obviously don't have the china automation and scaling capacity. Or China money.
The bottle neck is not science. Make them design robots that build physical factories.
The most important new thing for me in this announcement is that XBOX is still alive.
The other is that Indian sounding C level names is the coupling constant of the enshittification field.
"Only"
- Prev
- Next

I think that CAD/CAM system are very good showcase - first - they are somewhat programming language - you can create any shape by steps. The models are not trained on that specifically - and you can have quite a bit of benchmark proofing.
For the record my local codex 5.3 created quite ok-ish representation of the task in 5-6 minutes. So probably something more complicated.
More options
Context Copy link