rspeele

7 ms·

1.
by rspeele 13d ago
Amazing New Hyperbolic Chamber Greatest Invention In The History Of Mankind Ever[1] [1] https://theonion.com/amazing-new-hyperbolic-chamber-greatest...
2.
by rspeele 15d ago
I'm not the Paint.NET developer (just a happy user of that software), but to me the moral logic would go something like this: If Anthropic can absorb proprietary or GPL code into their models, which they rent usage of for tens of billi
3.
by rspeele 15d ago
> ...even people in tech can vastly overestimate the capabilities... I think people in (software) tech are currently more prone to overestimate the capabilities, because LLMs in a harness are genuinely excellent at programming. Program
4.
by rspeele 22d ago
It is just a coding mistake, except that fixing that mistake leaves you with clunkier abstractions. If you have Foos, and users have permissions that control what they can do to a Foo, you'd like to have a function `GetPermissions :
5.
by rspeele 24d ago
I remember that name from NCSSM! Cool to see you on the front page of HN.
6.
by rspeele 1mo ago
This is such a great time capsule movie. You can smell the cigarette smoke when you watch it. It also has the most perfect ending shot I've ever seen.
7.
by rspeele 2mo ago
I actually don't mean that skills are useless, I have them in my projects too. Just that any time I've seen one shared publicly, basically the introductory blurb of "what does this skill do?" would serve adequately as &q
8.
by rspeele 2mo ago
I have yet to see an "agent skill" that does not match this description.
9.
by rspeele 2mo ago
You take advantage of the property that verifying / sanity-checking an answer is usually much easier and faster than figuring out the answer in the first place. It's similar to how Google has been useful for the past few decades d
10.
by rspeele 2mo ago
Even if you have a moral opposition to a single line of LLM-generated code marring your codebase (not even unit tests!) it can be incredibly useful to assist with reading code. Take a complex, sophisticated codebase you wrote, that only y
11.
by rspeele 2mo ago
You can also walk freely FPS style with WASD and mouse-dragging to look around.
12.
by rspeele 2mo ago
Despite having long valued statically typed languages, and IDEs with excellent refactoring tools (VS + ReSharper was a godsend back in the day before MS implemented most of the must-have features themselves)... I sort of disagree. The probl
13.
by rspeele 3mo ago
"Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about.&quo
14.
by rspeele 3mo ago
Yep. "Developer" was already an inflation over "programmer". Sometime in the late 2000s/early 2010s people started saying, oh, a programmer means you just type in the code to implement requirements, a developer ac
15.
by rspeele 3mo ago
> "What have you got against machines?" said Buck. > "They're slaves." > "Well, what the heck," said Buck. "I mean, they aren't people. They don't suffer. They don't mind worki
16.
by rspeele 3mo ago
It's afraid!
17.
by rspeele 3mo ago
> Every 1 prompt of building tends to require 1-5 prompts of clean up. Simple, fast, clean good code. I have found this to be very effective as well. However, it's so easy to do, I can't imagine they won't build it in. The
18.
by rspeele 3mo ago
> I'd say SQL is a very high level language. Yes indeed. When I learned SQL in college, the professor made a HUGE deal about how it was a "4th generation language" so it was so abstract you didn't have to think about
19.
by rspeele 4mo ago
One thing something like AutoCodeBenchmark cannot demonstrate is what happens when you have human-written type definitions defining the domain before the LLM writes a line of code. That is something I have found very effective in F#, that I
20.
by rspeele 4mo ago
It has been about 10 years since Python was a daily driver for me and at that time I wrote it the old fashioned way with no type hints and no static checking, just like grandma used to make. The times I have needed to dig back into it have
21.
by rspeele 4mo ago
> the errors I get at runtime are almost never type-based That surprises me, but everyone's experiences are different. I've been in the statically typed language space for so long and enjoyed it so much, I find it pretty irrita
22.
by rspeele 4mo ago
Fascinating quote and good point. It should also be remembered that while the industrial revolution netted humanity enormous wealth and eventually a higher average standard of living, it also kinda sucked for the generations of working clas
23.
by rspeele 4mo ago
> whats wrong with struggling alcoholics having jobs via a program? Finally, a job AI will never beat me at.
24.
by rspeele 4mo ago
The camera analogy is a good one but I have never had a camera that had every great picture somebody else had taken, plus every work of art, baked into it. They only captured what they were aimed at directly by the user. Well, maybe next ti
25.
by rspeele 4mo ago
> A derivative work is a work that itself includes copyrighted content from the original work. If you put a GPL C program through Emscripten to run in a browser the output doesn't include the original C code but it's surely a d
26.
by rspeele 4mo ago
> Perhaps this illustrates a fissure that was always lurking under the surface, then(...) Yes, I do think there has always been such a fissure. People publish OSS code for many reasons, often a blend of multiple reasons. There are selfis
27.
by rspeele 4mo ago
The contract behind open source was something like (GPL): "If you copy my work, you should share your work too." or at minimum (MIT): "If you copy my work, you should credit me." I think it is no longer under dispute tha
28.
by rspeele 4mo ago
> Static types are, in a real sense, a compensation for the gap I just described - the gap between the description and the running thing. When you can't easily inspect or reshape the live system, you want the compiler to tell you as
29.
by rspeele 4mo ago
> But I'm already responsible for the bugs in my software. Also, who cares if someone else is responsible? And how does that align with OSS's "no warranty provided"? The original example from Simon Willison referred n
30.
by rspeele 4mo ago
Two points. 1. You can treat software like a black box when other people developed it for you because they can stand behind it. They have their own reputations to uphold. You can't when AI developed it for you because YOU are responsib

More ›