another-dave

I would've thought you could solve that with multiple agents.

So rather than having "Claude" installed as a god-mode user in all channels, you have 10 instances of a bot running, each with their own context and ACLs.

For example, you could set it so that the agent's ACLs become the intersect of the least privileged user in all the channels it lives in - you try to add a bot to the "Executive Bonus discussion" and get told

You can't add AliceBot to this channel because AliceBot is also in #intern-onboarding alongside 'Johnny Appleseed' and Johnny doesn't have access to this channel. Would you like to create a new bot?"

My understanding of what they were saying Buzz is is that agents are "1st class" users in their own right, rather than being an app integration.

If you have a user called Claude, then you just apply ACL as normal & you don't care if they're human or bot, right?

that feels like the opposite analogy though - filleting a fish to the precision of a Michelin starred kitchen might be hard, but knives in general are easy to use, even for a beginner.

I think it's a really interesting space, because it feels like the answer to what a DM does in context is on a spectrum - as in, their decisions on what is valid/invalid is not pure game engine analysis (Nb1 is illegal, disallow) and it's not pure improv (work the story with a "yes, and…" approach).

Instead it's very context dependent - the DM might accept a player saying "I put a sausage in the NPC's mouth" if the player is in a tavern having his dinner, even if it was never explicitly stated that he's eating sausages. It's a judgement call as to whether the DM thinks this particular bit of improv will move the story in an interesting direction, even if they haven't written it upfront plus an attempt at balancing that magicking up an item out of thin air isn't conferring an unfair advantage.

Why wouldn't a player be available though? CD/DVD players won't just suddenly stop working. My CDs and CD players at home from the 1990s are still working completely fine.

If they do want to posit it as this, I'd personally be fine if they said "a CD will work for 100k plays before corrupting" so you'll have 100,000 credits to stream The Wizard of Oz before you need to purchase it again.

But they need to say that upfront.

this feels like a fun premise!

As feedback, I think I'd enjoy it more with shorter words or more guesses

I think most people would consider it something published alright, as other definitions start to become a bit absurd (e.g. reading the menu at a restaurant or the match day programme probably aren't what people consider as 'reading for pleasure').

Outside of that, I don't think we should gatekeep it too much though - the biggest benefits come from reading anything at all.

This post from awhile back suggests it's at 501 karma - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439437

He'll likely win alright, but at the last GE, he only received 21,225 out of 45,648 votes cast, (so got 47% of the votes on 58% turnout).

I think you'll get a non-trivial amount of people voting for Binface either a) because you don't care about politics & think it's funny b) as "anyone but Farage" c) to treat it as a by-election because they think Binface won't take his seat and it'll trigger the 'real byelection' with their preferred party instead.

I think Erskine May just says "Members should dress in business-like attire" - so maybe if he had a special 'business bin' as opposed to a 'smart-casual bin' he could argue the point.

He would though have to remove the bin for votes at the least

It reminds me of that old parable where the acolyte asks the priest "Father, can I smoke while I pray?" and gets told "No, you should be focusing on praying. That wouldn't be respectful". But then he says "Can I pray while I smoke?" and gets told "of course, you can pray at any time".

If it's 'walking time', I probably don't want to consume that with work. But if it's 'working time', it could be great to have a nice walk during it.

I mean, even all else aside - why would they need a "perpetual, irrevocable" licence?

"That in itself shows people regard the interaction they had with the company as a purchase, not just temporary access that can be removed unilaterally on a whim."

and of course an end user believes it's a purchase when the companies explicitly say things like "Rent for £2.99 or Buy for £9.99".

If Sony want to market this as buying rather than renting a film, then I think that they need to either -

- negotiate a contract that "grandfathers in" availability for as long as the platform exists, even if they lose rights to sell to new customers - refund what it'd now cost to buy outright elsewhere if they're pulling the title (if they want, maybe pro rate that. e.g. count a purchase as 100 years of access to it. If I lose rights after 10 years, I get a 90% refund)

Is it? I thought that's specifically what the OP was talking about — the ranking that their resumé scored on the ATS algorithm.

If you contribute to open source you are more likely to contribute to the company on weekends

I wonder if that assumption is bourne out in reality though?

I'd imagine if someone's OSS contributions are enough of a factor that it's worth hiring them, they're not going to drop it on a whim to work extra hours on the day job.

(Assuming you weed out open source contributions like "I made a todo list app in React but licenced it as MIT" or "I fixed a typo in the docs for NextJS". )

For one, if you go on to Hacker Rank's "Screen" page, they mention the product is used by Stripe/AirBnB/LinkedIn/Atlassian/IBM etc etc. I imagine that there's plenty more companies using it too.

But I'd also assume that their competitors are doing something similar so I don't think we as an industry can just ignore that it's happening.

I always find it funny when a technical crowd starts picking on em dashes as a sure sign of AI. I mean, are keyboard shortcuts really that difficult for developers? Some of us always knew how to use correct punctuation, even before LLMs existed.

Also, neither "this is not" or "it is" appear at all in the article?

I find physical menus much easier to search personally - I can "time slice" switching my attention around different parts of the menu fairly easily and home in on which I might want.

It's clear how much menu there is to sort through. If I want to pick something for someone else (e.g. my daughter), there's clear sign posting to what's available.

Often the digital menus I get linked to are either just a PDF of the paper menu (in which case, I'm viewing it at phone window size rather than full A4) or it's a website with nesting in different ways, so you're not sure if you've seen everything or not.

"The effort length and instantaneous power output changes, of course."

but that's what the phrase is meant to convey, right?

Don't run through consumable X (energy/money/etc) like there's no tomorrow - even though there's <some big important milestone> now, we've got dozens more of those that we need to meet, so you're better off getting this one done at 75% than committing 100% to it and failing on all the others.

Always reminds me of Guy Steele's "Growing a Language" talk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw6TaiXzHAE&t=48s

Think it's a great fit for IF alright.

It's technically feasible to just draw all the individual dots but it doesn't necessarily convey the information better.

When individual points are drawn close together, they're hard to discern without zooming right in. Even with additive opacity, they max out quite quickly once a couple of dots overlap.

"Can the sandwich be further compressed? We don’t think so. At one end of the pipeline, development teams need to decide what to build."

I mean, but this is talking about the process as a whole, not individual jobs.

"Farmers won't be replaced by combine harvesters - we still need someone to decide what to plant and to harvest it". Sure, but if you used to have 10 labourers in a field manually ploughing with a pair of oxen and now you have one guy driving the machinery it absolutely has replaced jobs.

Companies are already talking about "1 person teams" to deliver projects. We'll still have _some_ jobs but the ratio will change dramatically and engineering will move a lot closer to "team lead" role (and maybe even Product Manger role to boot)

they are responsible for it, but it's useful in reporting to differentiate between "fulfilled by" and "bought through"

What I always wonder is why we don't have more standardisation around end-user contracts. E.g. something equivalent to YC's SAFE (https://www.ycombinator.com/documents) but for employment agreements, leaseholds etc.

We understand what we can & can't do with software licences and creative commons because we know "this is MIT" or "that is CC, no commercial, with attribution" and we don't need to delve further.

If we had similar for employment terms - ACME Ltd want to hire me for £x at Y location using the standard "UK employee contract" - it feels like you could sidestep a lot of the need for AI parsing individual documents that are all subtly different.

Lawyers are _already_ using templates, but they're all using bespoke templates and it means that you've got ambiguity by virtue of the fact that the sentence in my contract has never been tested in court.

I really wish there was a "pre prompt" hook natively. As in, before the agent releases control back to me to prompt it again, it runs the hook.

I have a pre-push hook that runs all lint/prettier/typechecks/tests etc. These are all clearly signposted in the project, the AGENTS and CLAUDE files are set to run them.

Still though, I'll get it saying "All done" and then it'll fail something basic like formatting when I go to push. Or I've come back to a 'ralph wiggum' loop before and found it saying "tests are broken, but that's not part of this commit, so ignoring"

Exactly like the article describes Britain doing with the Soviets - " At the time the British government wasn't involved in space exploration, so paying for a spot on a flight was the only way to get there."

Need a proof reader who can spell strawberry? Send your AI draft to us for corrections.

he explicitly said 'double-digit bottom-line growth'

The real 'next big thing' would be integrating an engine like Gemini with OS-level hooks (similar to the OpenClaw approach) so agents can manipulate app windows and state directly. Resurrecting Web Intents as 2-way App Intents would be the key to making this work.

I think for something like this, it will only work if you can allow you local files to get messed up by the LLM but then, because everything has been synced to the cloud, there's a safe "revert" option.

I'd love that built on a Linux foundation too, but realistically reckon if they're going down that path they've got the core of "all your app state can be backed-up/transferred" already in Android so they'd likely lean heavily on that.

Goes away, or is liable for the content promoted to the frontpage under the OP's take?

But I'd agree, that it's personalisation rather than just curation that's the issue.

I think even requiring sites to have a "bring your own algo" version (and where ads are targetted to the algorithm, rather than the person) would cure a lot of ills.

As is, even with something like Spotify where you _are_ paying there's no easy way to "reset" your profile to neutral recommendations