alwaysbeconsing

Andrew's job isn't to make a JS runtime

Most likely too late for edit, but Jarred is who work for Anthropic, not Andrew.

You can be reckless even if everything ends up being perfect in the end.

This. Something I expect any person who think they are "engineer" to understand without thinking.

Quite right. I bemoan shortsightedness of managerial types often, but too many fellow techies had assume that gravy ride will last forever. In eyes of management we have not the same leverage now.

Competition. Using my open source projects directly doesn't kill my employment. AI company explicitly say they want to put me out of work, using my code aginst me.

Problem come when a third-party code do that swizzling, looking at you every iOS analytics framework to this day.

Siri original release came four or five years before Google assistant.

If you have time, people, resources for such you might also interest in more elaborate variation, my favorite https://killerqueenarcade.com/fieldgame Three different win condition, and one player have special role as "queen bee". Myself have only played arcade version unfortunately.

Need time and effort to ensure junior docs are thorough. Usually multiple revision in my experience. This require acceptance from management that "just write code fast" is not a success path.

Not a good look. But to precise, user had already second-highest score long prior to period of posting AI work. In that case AI answers did not affect ranking.

it's on pretty much every system

Some system have GNU, some BSD.

at least trivial to install

Then same for `just`, package manager have it.

Incorrect. 1P orginally offer direct LAN syncing among machines.

but in an implicit structure that 'leader' is quickly sidelined when people figure out the quality of their decisions are poor

More likely to end up in turf war unless exist legible means to transition leadership. Some members will stick with old leader for various reason, some will push for new, some will be unawares and courted to choose their side. Person in leadership does not most likely give it up quietly and immediately.

Mashup of Dunbar's Number with "The Magical Number 7 Plus or Minus One"

+1 Can see from project homepage http://web.archive.org/web/20240329165859/https://xz.tukaani... they have some release responsibility from 5.2.12.

Versions 5.2.12, 5.4.3 and later have been signed with Jia Tan's OpenPGP key . The older releases have been signed with Lasse Collin's OpenPGP key .

It must be assume that before acquiring that privilege, they also contributed code to project. Probably most was to establish respectable record. Still could be malicious code going back someways.

Sum type is key, called "discriminated union" sometimes generally. In Rust this is an `enum`. Simulated in some languages as tuples with tag first element. Discrete number of states, attaching information only relevant to each single state. Thus, never have invalid combination of other fields.

Precedent for Python-like but C-level language in Nim; will be interested to see how yours develops too. Good luck!

Agree, it is Curse of Lisp mixed in NIH syndrome. Syntax of cond* is no more straightforward than that of pcase. As was pointed out on mailing list. Awkward decision by maintainers to keep both into core.

Looks readable with Reader Mode for me.

Very frustrating that any place where I can store code has way more security than what's more important to me: place where I store my money. Financial companies still using SMS for 2FA!

I see zero issue with AI farming Stack Overflow,

Thought AI companies farming copyrighted work on the other hand, that's a different story.

All post on Stack Overflow are still copyright of respective posters. They are offered publicly under Creative Commons license that require attribution.

I believe statement is about the playlist Spotify makes, not those made by user. Those called "Daily Mix", generated on user listening choices.

It means they keep position as dominant Git forge, mindshare: people are most familiar with them, then think of them first for Enterprise contracts, are interested in other paid product/feature (Copilot e.g.).

Side benefit to overwhelming mindshare many people expect/require the other forge to have the Github feature: being different counts as negative. This reinforces.

Would not Ruby be the comparison to do? In which case it I think is nearly identical to the Crystal.

Does sound rightfully terrible. It's exceptionally common cognitive mistake to discover a categorization (of people) and take it as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Especially in corporate business context.

Have not read the book, but the Four Teams list obviously describe real roles. But that doesn't mean organization must or should go out and immeiately partition their teams according this scheme. The value is to recognize that these roles exist and are probably performed somewhere by someone in some way or another in the organization. (But perhaps your org is too small to have much of Platform component, say, so it's just Alice who update CI every N week on as-needed basis.) And to use that knowledge to understand the overall process and where there may be problems or future problems.

In the end both must be weighed. It is also too easy to accept an bull artist who talks the game but cannot play it.

Whitespace significance might be the choice even more controversial than Lisp parens. For myself, I appreciate both, but those that do not, really do not.

From the demo video it looks that buttons can activate with similar pinch gesture as new Apple watch has.

even though your internal monologue might still be going "hmm should I pick A or B?", the decision, where your internal monologue eventually will end up, has already been made.

There is an older better experiment by Benjamin Libet of this. The participant is directed to choose whether to press a single button, and watching a fast clock display to report the instant the decision is taken. The measurement and comparison of the brain activity clearly shows deciding to press, many milliseconds before the participant experiences deciding. Therefore, the participant does not have free will, is it not so? Since the decision is done before it is known to be done by the subject.

The retort is simple. The leap to "no free will" ignores that consciousness itself is a processing: the brain component that reconciles the internal input and renders it for externality takes time to do its work. The decision is still made by the participant. The subjective experience is behind the objective activation simply just as the signal for a television screen must pass through the wire before it is translated for pixels.

The most reasonable conculsion (though tentative) seems to be that SSRI and the more "traditional" option may help some, while psychedelics may help others. (And we have to imagine other drugs in the future will be found.) The trick will to figure out which person will respond to which. But I think all can agree having more options is better.

To borrow from Samuel Johnson, it's worth having read, but not worth reading.