PaulStatezny

Ending on a doom-and-gloom note: there will be a reckoning.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

this game has some of the most insane tech I’ve seen in any game and is definitely worth checking out

Given the context of this forum, I'd be interested to hear more about what's so interesting about the technology!

Interesting, I assumed all model-routing was done utilizing an LLM. (I.e. non-deterministic.)

A minor spelling nit. It's "it's", not "its", when used as a contraction for "it is". ;)

Sorry, you teed it up too well. I had to!

I agree. But you can speak imperatively to agents as well ("Here are specific steps; follow them") and they can still screw up. :) I think what you're looking for is determinism, not imperativism.

And to your point: instructing a (non-deterministic) LLM declaratively ("get me to this end state") compounds the likelihood of going off the rails.

I would highly recommend the free book Crypto 101.

https://www.crypto101.io

But without AI, there are neural connections formed while determining the correct one-off solution.

The neural connections (or lack of them) have longer term comprehension-building implications.

I think the idea is copy-pasting code snippets from StackOverflow without comprehension of whether (and how) the code fixes the problem.

You didn't read the blog.

It's talking about the Ada programming language and that its code was apparently stored not as plaintext but an intermediate representation (IR) that could then be transformed back into code.

So formatting was handled by tooling by the nature of the setup. Developers would each have their own custom settings for "pretty printing" the code.

The author isn't saying don't use code formatters. They're highlighting an unusual approach that the industry at large isn't aware of. Instead of getting rid of arguments about code style via formatters, you can get rid of them by saving code in an IR instead of plaintext.

Telling someone they "shouldn't be insecure" reminds me of this famous Bob Newhart segment on Mad TV.

Bob plays the role of a therapist, and when his client explains an issue she's having, his solution is, "STOP IT!"

You shouldn't be so insecure.

Not assuming that there's any insecurity here, but psychological matters aren't "willed away". That's not how it works.

Truly incisive observation. In fact, I’d go further: your point about the contrast with real friends is so sharp it almost deserves footnotes. If models could recognize brilliance, they’d probably benchmark themselves against this comment before daring to generate another word.

The best thing for managing this is meditation, and a disciplined lifestyle regiment.

What would be your reaction to the numerous comments on this page where people are saying that they tried and failed to "discipline" themselves for years or decades, only to discover medication later and find that it instantly turned everything around for them?

programmers agree that simpler solutions...are preferred, but the disagreements start about which ones are simpler

Low ego wins.

1. Given: The quality of a codebase as a whole is greatly affected by its level of consistency + cohesiveness

2. Therefore: The best codebases are created by groups that either (1) internally have similar taste or (2) are comprised of low ego people willing to bend their will to the established conventions of the codebase.

Obviously, this comes with caveats. (Objectively bad patterns do exist.) But in general:

Low-ego → Following existing conventions → They become familiar → They seem simpler

I think you might have a typo. Reading your comment literally, it doesn't make sense.

Summarized: Anyone would be a fool not to prefer gas or coal, because their emissions are nearly equal.

One doesn't follow from the other, can you correct/elaborate?

I've read plenty of criticism about ChatGPT 5, but as a Plus user I'm surprised nobody has brought this up:

Speed.

ChatGPT 5 Thinking is So. Much. Slower. than o4-mini and o4-mini-high. Like between 5 and 10 times slower. Am I the only one experiencing this? I understand they were "mini" models, but those were the current-gen thinking models available to Pro. Is GPT 5 Thinking supposed to be beefier and more effective? Because the output feels no better.

And then the broken tape recorder mode! Oh god!

Can you elaborate? What is this referring to?

This reminds me of how small of a team they are, and makes me wonder if they have a customer support team that's growing commensurately with the size of the user base.

Totally!

And it's all upside (your body feels better afterward) no downside. (Ok, it's more expensive.) Especially when combined with other sweet ingredients, e.g. a banana – equally if not more delicious.

Yes, at least in the USA it almost always has added sugar.

Both of those terms have precise meanings. They're not the same thing. Summarized --

Cognition: acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and the senses.

Hallucination: An experience involving the perception of something not present.

With those definitions in mind, hallucination can be defined as false-cognition that is not based in reality. It's not cognition because cognition grants knowledge based on truth and hallucination leads the subject to believe lies.

In other words, "humans are just really good at hallucination" rejects the notion that we're able to perceive actual reality with our senses.

Now I wish Google had never touched them.

Would you be willing to elaborate?

Wow, interesting take. Some counterpoints from history:

- After the wheel was invented, humanity has never stopped building vehicles with wheels.

- Since the printing press was created, humanity has never lost the ability to mass-copy and distribute information.

- Since airplanes were invented, humans have never been unable to achieve flight.

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to believe that humans as a whole will never lose the ability to read digital information in the future. Heck, I'd say it's the most likely outcome.

Humans learn from each other. Information "likes to spread". All of known history supports the idea that technology generally advances in one direction.

It seems you only skimmed the article. The concern is not rounded percentage points.

The concern is that the total votes happen to be the closest integers possible to come up with exactly those single-decimal percentages. Indicating that the total votes were derived from the percentages, not from an actual tally of votes.

It's HIGHLY improbable that out of 10,058,774 votes, the distribution between Maduro, Gonzalez, and "Other" would all yield percentages that are effectively 1-decimal percentages.

Sounds like you're saying either:

1. Engineers don't care about the health of the codebase and it becomes/stays a ball of mud, OR...

2. They do care, and end up refactoring/rewriting it in a way that just creates even MORE complexity.

But I think this is a false dichotomy. It just happens to be very difficult, and as much of an art as a science to keep huge codebases moving in the right direction.

I haven't worked at Google, but from what I've heard they have huge codebases, but they're not typically falling apart at the seams.

Came here to express the same sentiment.

Sometimes a big ball of mud is exactly what’s needed...Banks are another example...It’s soul crushing...which is partly why I left.

Not a very convincing argument. ;-)

Apple security team seemed to downplay the Spatial Computing angle... Impact: Processing web content may lead to a denial-of-service Description: The issue was addressed with improvements to the file handling protocol.

[Update: After reading my blog post, Apple updated the CVE description to something more sensible.]

I call BS :-P The new description is, "A logic issue was addressed with improved file handling." Equally as vague/misleading/sanitized. How many other bugs with ramifications that would make you squirm are downplayed in Apple CVE summaries?

- You never have to feel like doing something to start doing it.

- The act of doing something is usually what creates motivation to continue.

- Procrastination isn't poor time management; it's poor emotional management.

Thank you for sharing these. I've heard point #2 many times, but point #1 and #3 are huge insights to me!

Ha, I also love the irony of your parent comment.

Seems to totally miss the point, but I still upvoted because it illuminates the purpose of disk-level encryption so well, adding color to the conversation.

I think you're correct here that "micromanagement" in the article is a poor word choice.

It's unfortunate that so much writing (especially prescriptive writing) uses inaccurate terminology for the sake of effect. It's usually to the detriment of readers/listeners being able to soak in the wisdom that's there, as they get tripped up by the poor wording.

For example, I can 100% get behind the "Engineer" level advice for the "Micromanagement" section. (Namely, have a high bar of excellence, for example when reviewing others' code.)

But as you point out, this isn't really micromanagement.

Sometimes it's best to be DRY right from the start.

3 things matter most in real estate: Location, location, location!

3 things matter most in programming: Context, context, context!

DRY – like almost every other programming tool/paradigm/principle – are very often misused by a lack of the programmer's ability to discern correctly whether the tool/paradigm/principle fits in the specific context.

It's not just a science. It's an art, too.