HN user
Wow thanks for the link. My first reaction was "that's the jankiest thing I've ever heard of" but on reflection the author is correct about it being a fairly optimally fit predator. When the benchmark is .xlsx files on a shared drive things are bound to get pretty weird.
From my limited second-hand understanding of orcl, a team that operates in a smooth and well greased manner is quite the anomaly. I could see why the company would have an immune response to it.
Yeah, negative tests are more important than the "test your tests" thing. Negative tests are themselves regression tests. Testing that a test works is something you do at dev time, it doesn't really live in CI. Negative tests, as well as positive tests, establish invariants on the code under test. They're effectively permanent, immortalized in the CI suite. Testing that the test actually works is a one time thing at the time the test is written. Permute the code under test, check that the test fails in the expected way, done.
You just have to trust your colleagues won't edit the tests in such a way that vandalizes the invariant. That's why you can never trust an LLM to edit a test. They're notorious for tweaking tests such that they pass.
All of those beliefs seem approximately equally regressive? What percentage of people think there's something non-physical that actually exists? I'd put them in the same padded cell as the rest of those clowns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpQamTrynBY
[edit] preemptively, if you're going to claim "but this isn't art so irrelevant" then I claim bull fucking shit. It's the same problem no matter how you slice it whether it be engineering, support, art, or medicine. Get real. Look inward. Touch grass. If you think AI is a good thing for your profession--whatever that profession might be--you're probably a delusional psychotic. It's OK, you'll thank me later.
Is the name a POR-15 product reference? Incredible if so :D
\m/_(>.<)_\m/Yeah types and APIs that are difficult to misuse are way better than any regression test, canary, or what have you. Systems that are correct by construction always beat "you're holding it wrong".
A more cautious civilization might take measures to prevent emissions. There's potentially great value in remaining unnoticed.
I'm not quite following your objection.. I'd expect a test that checks the multiplier is correct would detect orders of magnitude discrepancy. So if you're billing $x/byte you'd write a test for the billing thing that checks that, given y bytes, the bill is x*y.
[edit] This may need to be an integration test to be effective, there is a certain peril to mocking that could bite you here. But that's fine, we have the technology.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it...
[edit] Testing your tests, like testing your backups, is a good idea
It's not difficult to write regression tests that catch unit mistakes.
We have a pretty strong existence proof... the thing happened in production. Unless they have some means to override a failing test and scp broken shit to prod, there wasn't a test.
That's good for the credit card company, they can project stable revenue 100k years into the future.
Either way it shows their QA and testing procedures are incompetent. It's just not acceptable for a utility like AWS to move fast and break shit. Should make you question whether it's safe or advisable to use any of their services.
It probably shouldn't be legal for banks, hospitals, governments, or any other critical infrastructure to be hosted on AWS if they do things like this.
The whole thing seems like a downward spiral of brain rot. I don't understand what the reward is for participating, it seems like a total waste of human effort.
If you don't know regex--how to write them, how to use them, what they're good for, what they're not good for--what makes you think you're competent to review a PR containing one?
If you don't know how to regex and you let your imaginary LLM friend write one for you, and you foist that upon your colleagues for review, you've just abused their trust. Because they, being ethical, honest engineers, must now do all the work you neglected except they're doing it at review time instead of at the time of writing.
Or maybe they're dishonest and unethical and they'll just maliciously or negligently approve the PR without actually reviewing the regex.
Either way the situation is completely rotten. You can never ethically use an LLM to do something you're not competent to do yourself.
What's up with all the AI generated responses on that page?
AGE actually looks very interesting. When I evaluated it a while back it seemed like the project wasn't very active and I couldn't find any information about folks using it at scale in production. If I was forced to use a graph database again, and I didn't immediately quit upon receiving that news, I might give AGE a look.
I have had very bad experiences with graph dbs at scale. To the point where I will never again work on a project based on a graph db. YMMV, but I'm done with them forever.
[edit] To elaborate: tuning read and write performance is difficult, essentially everything must be indexed. This results in an explosion in data size--so data that might be X TB in csv format becomes maybe 10X when you consider all the indexes and bloat from the graph db's storage format. Which brings us to the topic of compression: there isn't any. Moreover, graph dbs are basically all quite immature compared to other db software, they haven't seen the test of production to the same degree, nor have they gotten the same attention in terms of bugfixes, performance tuning, etc. So they often have very sharp edges that you encounter under load. So if you like spending tons of money and time on zero value work, choose a graph db!
[another edit] Another problem with graph dbs is they encourage laziness in data modelling. I would echo others' recommendations here: just start with SQL. If it gets to the point where you actually need a graph query language--and you've already appropriately considered your life choices and determined that there's some value to what you're doing--only then should you consider trying to implement something on a graph query engine. But I'm not aware of one that is actually good. That's the problem. If you're at the point where you absolutely need a graph database you are probably at the point where you need to build your own. And you'll probably fail like all the other ones.
The number of people who think the emergence thing is settled smh... It's been a thing for at least 30yr, answering it one way or the other would be a big deal. It does nobody any favors having these infinitely capitalized hype firms calling themselves "labs".
It's not a subtle pattern.
ok engagement
That is such a miserably low bar
Writing is thinking. If you don't spend time writing, then you didn't spend time thinking. LLMs don't think. Consequently, if you outsourced your writing to an LLM the resulting artifact was born of a thoughtless process. Instead of engaging your readers in your thought process you're tricking them with a puzzle. Readers will try to understand what you're thinking about (at least the non-passive ones will). This activity is a dead end for LLM output.
“Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but, as the space engineer James Oberg once said, not so open that your brains fall out.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
+1 I can't imagine how any corporate entity could be credible in this financial environment. Nothing they say can be reliably considered as anything but marketing copy. This situation is exactly what academic publishing is for. Although that institution has also been degrading.
That brings me back to this wireframe tank combat game we used to play on the LAN in middle school. I think it was called Spectre.
broken link maybe?
0. Pour money on the fire
1. AI somehow becomes AGI because money implies "emergence" I guess?
2. Profit somehow?Yeah I've stepped on that face rake a few times. I still think it's a decent heuristic, don't see any reason to change.
I'm sure it's my fault, somehow - but I'm a damn good writer; I just don't know how to communicate with people who won't put forth the effort to engage with detail.
I used to put effort into those people. It was a waste of time. Now I just do everything I can to ignore them, work around them, etc.
Knowledge workers who won't engage with the material are just like ditch diggers who won't touch a shovel. They're dead weight, and organizations that fail to cull them are doing it all wrong.
Sadly, that's most of them these days.