Bootvis

For him, the cost of editing was much larger. Condensing your writing in his time meant rewriting it more concisely, requiring strictly more time than collecting his thoughts as he went.

With LLM's, we are in a new state of the world: it can expand any one sentence off hand remark in an essay.

It’s a terrible adage. There are thousands of ways to cheat honest people that place bets. For example, they definitely cheated everyone that only placed bets before June.

He went to prison, served his time, paid his debt to society. There is no need for further punishment.

But do they use it when their homework is due?

I do really like the idea.

But pardon my ignorance, but one could quite easily roll this themselves? Script the hooks and fire off a headless agent with a hook specific prompt.

What is the benefit of realizing the gains for France? They had gold, they still have gold. They don't pay tax on their gold or gains.

Nice

< Look at the tasteful colouring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God.

On the other hand, others don’t have to adopt, use or like your stuff which would be the reasons to publish it.

One big commit definitely doesn’t help with creating confidence in this project.

Proving her point.

Also for a * b + c ? I know clang tidy wants me to do this but I think it is overkill.

From the Stockfish docs at https://official-stockfish.github.io/docs/stockfish-wiki/Sto....

Rating Stockfish against a human scale, such as FIDE Elo, has become virtually impossible. The gap in strength is so large that a human player cannot secure the necessary draws or wins for an accurate Elo measurement.

[1] https://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

A large telecommunications satellite operates at about 15kW. A Blackwell GPU consumes 1kW so you would be at 15 Blackwells per satellite. The cooling surface needs to scale linearly so there is little return to scale.

This doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

There is no relation.

The phone not being steady matters for sound recording? How?

The author was frustrated that the error message identified him as an organisation (that was disabled) and mockingly refers to himself as the (disabled) organisation in the post.

At least, that’s my reading but it appears it confuses about half of the commenters here.

Should have asked Claude how to write it better.

I understand your logic but I found LLM's to be quite strong at C#. It makes little mistakes and the mistakes seem related to the complexity of what I'm doing, not the language itself.

This is incorrect. The miner just changes the header of the block and rehashes. The transaction set is fixed for many tries.

I agree this is easy enough to follow but I'd like to quibble about something else:

Comments should answer the question why you are not using some kind of hash set and do a single pass over the data and why it's OK to reorder the strings. One could reasonable expect that Dedupe shows first occurrences in order.

This can have another explanation as well: the moment a block is found, the miner starts building on top of the previous block but hasn't constructed a new full block of transactions yet as that costs a bit of time to calculate and distribute. In this period, a new block could be found.

The whole series is excellent and as a non regular user of assembly I learned a ton.

Maybe, but buffer overflows would occur written in assembler written by experts as well. C is a fine portable assembler (could probably be better with the knowledge we have now) but programming is hard. My point: you can roughly expect an expert C programmer to produce as many bugs per unit of functionality as an expert assembly programmer.

I believe it to be likely that the C programmer would even writes the code faster and better because of the useful abstractions. An LLM will certainly write the code faster but it will contain more bugs (IME).

Not kidding, I bet llm’s are excellent at triaging these reports. Humans, in a corporate setting, are apparently not.

Use AI for that :)

My point is, needing to use something with care doesn't prevent it becoming from wildly successful. LLM's are wrong way more often but are also more versatile than a calculator.

It does if you’re a clumsy operator and those are not rare.

What about a strict subset of C#. The use case for F# seems to be shrinking because MS is putting all its energy in language.

This seems like an actually useful computation to do, unlike earlier results. Is that a reasonable reading of this article?

An AI powered meal planner that helps you create recipes, plan your weeks and manage your groceries:

https://github.com/bobjansen/mealmcp

There is a website too so you don’t actually need to use MCP:

https://meals.bobjansen.net/

I understand this as follows:

Legal: doesn’t break the rules of chess. For example: no pawns on the eighth rank or in check when it’s not their turn.

Reachable: there is a series of moves that lead to this position from the standard starting position.