nickelpro

6 ms·

1.
by nickelpro 27d ago
"This work" which is being "accelerated" in GP's quote is "the work underway to improve GitHub’s reliability". It is not new features.
2.
by nickelpro 27d ago
Do you think the load is going away? The current infrastructure cannot handle the new load requirements. Either the infrastructure must change, or they must start denying users the ability to use the infrastructure.
3.
by nickelpro 2mo ago
I would never write such a low information, generic, sentence to begin with. AI writing is rife with high-level, generic language. AI prose rarely addresses concrete concerns, instead preferring hedged generalizations. The "It may A, B
4.
by nickelpro 2mo ago
"A transcript should contain the instructions, messages, tool calls and tool results. Another sufficiently capable model might not continue identically, but it could understand what happened and take over." This is so obviously AI
5.
by nickelpro 2mo ago
> it is tacit consent for an unfinished solution No. It is cutting unused features to make a manageable product. * "That won't work on GCC 5.5." We don't support GCC 5.5, or any compiler which wasn't shipped this
6.
by nickelpro 2mo ago
"None of the deployments under consideration for this new initiative use that mechanism, that other deployments might is irrelevant to the internal product we are building" In my space this is usually something like, "X won&#
7.
by nickelpro 2mo ago
"We're not trying to build a perfect solution here" is not something said to assuage over-engineering or encourage sloppy work. It's said to head off a specific complaint from a specific kind engineer who will object tha
8.
by nickelpro 2mo ago
They aren't. This is a Windows quirk. Most IDE extensions which interface with git (or any other CLI program) from the CWD are "vulnerable" to the same attack. This is why the upstream didn't take it seriously, this has
9.
by nickelpro 2mo ago
OP is not the author. Fabien Sanglard's HN handle is fabiensanglard
10.
by nickelpro 3mo ago
They are the wider community. Programmers working on behalf of corporate actors write open source code in the commons because their organizations have discovered competing on some parts of the stack isn't as viable as collaborating on
11.
by nickelpro 3mo ago
> A lot of open source folks are going to be very skeptical, rightly so, of this group of players. You say this as if these players aren't members of "the open source folks". It's not an exclusive club.
12.
by nickelpro 3mo ago
A pointless distinction for OP's (heavy handed, LLM-generated) point: >The database you are helping build for a trustworthy government does not stay in trustworthy hands. Administrations change. A registry that merely catalogs who y
13.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
You've already rejected elsewhere in the comments the style of problem these calculators are used for as either "more complicated than a high schooler is taught" or a "your teachers have wasted your time". Which is
14.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
That rules out classes of problem which we want to teach, or falls back to using lookup tables which is more arduous and limits the number of problems which can be put on an exam. Teaching students to use lookup tables at all is a largely p
15.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
The compilation database[1] given to clangd needs to be complete, understood by the clangd argument parser, and capable of producing a build. This starts to hurt bad when the compiler producing the build is not clang. If you try to use a co
16.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
Basically that clangd needs an accurate compilation database to consume, which isn't a requirement for other language spaces.
17.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
If you do not understand how the underlying language server is configured, what the input and outputs are, how it operates, you will run into errors you are unequipped to deal with. Some languages are more severe than others on this. For ex
18.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
Because the bar is low and part of the craftsman's job is to learn their tools. If everyone who wanted to use a computer needed to learn how language servers work, that would be a problem. A programmer having to learn how language serv
19.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
It stops at the tools you use, "it's a tool you use every single day". If it's not a tool you use every day, you don't need to learn it. If you don't use language servers, you don't engage with development
20.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
The context is a user adopting an editor that has LSP integration and is relying on the language server. That's why I said "it's a tool you use every single day". If your tool is TextMate, you should learn how TextMate g
21.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
This is way too equivocating. You are a craftsman, learn your tools. Could you imagine the equivalent from other professionals? A machinist saying, "Understanding the differences and interop places between the DRO, hand controls, and C
22.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
Because then all entrants would fail the competition. There has been no significant jump in capabilities such that a meaningful demonstration of general purpose or cryptographically-relevant quantum computing could be performed on "pub
23.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
"CMake is too hard to debug, I'm stuck doing confusing print statements everywhere when I misconfigure something" "Good news, we added a debugger" "CMake has a debugger? Who would ever want that?" Sigh. Wo
24.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
They're just different definitions of success. For fusion the bar is "economically viable", in the current discussion for QC the bar is "cryptographically relevant". They are comparable in that to meet either criter
25.
by nickelpro 5mo ago
Fault tolerance is a hard problem, assembling qubits for simultaneous gate operations is another hard problem. There are several dozen others. It is exceptionally unlikely CRQC will be achieved in our lifetimes, if ever. The closer exampl
26.
by nickelpro 6mo ago
I agree basically with everything you're saying, but that's not arguing for raw gate netlists. If anything it's arguing for even higher levels of abstraction where clock domains are implicit semantic contexts. Many new school
27.
by nickelpro 6mo ago
I wanted to ship import std in 4.3 but there are some major disagreements over where the std.o symbols are supposed to come from. Clang says "we don't need them", GCC says "we'll ship them in libstdc++", and MS
28.
by nickelpro 6mo ago
This was considered during standardization. The feeling among tool developers at the time was it was "close enough" to Fortran modules to be mostly solvable. This was wrong, mostly because C++ compiler flag semantics are far more
29.
by nickelpro 6mo ago
BMIs are not considered distributable artifacts and were never designed to be. Same as PCHs and clang-modules which preceded them. Redistribution of interface artifacts was not a design goal of C++ modules, same as redistribution of CPython
30.
by nickelpro 6mo ago
CPS[1] is where all the effort is currently going for a C++ packaging standard, CMake shipped it in 4.3 and Meson is working on it. Pkgconf maintainer said they have vague plans to support at some point. There's no current effort to st

More ›