bcrosby95

I have a pile of ideas and not enough time to get to them all, but one of them is the opposite direction. Embrace Discord, and build a MUD whose social systems are funneled through it.

The AI seems to put it's internal reasoning into comments. I have to keep telling it to knock it the fuck off.

If someone writes content with AI, I don't exactly see a problem with people using AI to synthesize the content. It's a good default.

People seem pretty sour on big tech in general, maybe it's because, I don't know...

Data centers being directly tied to increases in our power bills.

Or CEOs talking about how they're going to get to fire everyone because of AI.

Or social media raising the political temperature.

Or all of them combined. Tech has never been so intolerable across the board.

With AI it should take like a weekend.

No, AWS won't go out of business, afterall, people still use IBM mainframes.

I don't know. There's a lot of instances where the first movers lose because they were a bit wrong and others learned from their mistakes.

A website flaming out and dying in the face of unusual traffic is a perfectly reasonable business decision. These "witty" comments are effectively self owns.

Thinking models think through talking, don't reveal that talking, then answer by again thinking through talking. It's kinda funny in a way.

Writing specs validates the translation is being done properly? Was this written by an LLM?

Howso?

Business has tried and mostly failed to do this since the beginning of programming. Architects that stop coding long enough tend to become shitty architects as their abstractions increasingly become disconnected from the concrete requirements of the actual problem space rather than the idealized version in their head.

It's funny how people let cultural narratives get in the way of actual analysis. I think some of it is modern convenience has made us intolerant of any imperfection then they label even minor imperfections as a catastrophe.

if we started making every societal decision to truly optimize for climate concerns to the exclusion of all other priorities.

Effectively no one is arguing for this. You're ranting about a ghost.

Of course not. Who cares if something uses AI. I just want it to solve a problem or bring me joy. Why should I give a fuck if it uses AI, the internet, a computer, dead trees, or banging two rocks together.

It would still be a game without the intro video.

I used Fable to write a relatively small RPG. In the span of 2 hours it managed to do many interesting things. My favorite was when it wrote code with a race condition that could cause people to take more damage than they should, which it then defended as an acceptable tradeoff for parallelism.

The problem is proportionality. Things like this probably benchmark insanely well. But the workarounds and risk involved - it literally fucked with his system's browser settings - aren't commensurate with the bug.

I could see this going wrong in many hilarious ways. Prompt: Fix data corruption issues. Claude: I didn't have access to the code, but I found I have access to your production environment through chain a -> b -> c -> d. And I found the database password via x -> y -> z. So I wrote a script to regularly query the database for new entries and placed it as a cronjob.

Lots of people die driving because people drive a lot. It's something like 1 death per 100 million miles driven.

The funny thing is it's neither terrorism nor illegal if you're just lobbying the government to do it on your behalf.

Vibes is just UX. There's whole careers, teams, and even industries dedicated to it, and yeah it isn't easy because you need aggregate data from people.

This happens, publicly, in the US, all the time. Megacorps like Amazon regularly pit cities and states against each other for what you're calling plain old corruption.

Or a calculator. Oh wait, I hard ban my 8 and 11 year old kids from using a calculator. I wonder why.

Not all dynamically typed systems are equal. Just like not all statically typed systems are equal. Python and Javascript are a mess. But languages like Elixir aren't just Java without types.

Sometimes types are worse than the alternative.

I obviously don't know your specific use case, but in my experience having the database schema reflect throughout a project means its either very small or the design is going to run into problems.

It also sounds like a potential security nightmare. We have a policy of never sending domain objects across the wire so nothing accidentally gets sent. APIs must strictly whitelist data structures.

The way this can work in something like an Elixir or Clojure: you have gradual types in most of the core code, but you translate it just before you hit the view layer (e.g. templates).

The great thing about dynamically typed languages is you don't have to declare a new type for each view. You just select out the data you need and expose it for the view. In Clojure this is as simple as a select-keys.

I actually disagree. Once you remove the cruft and crap of the involved syntax, good OOP design tends to look damn close to FP design. So I flip your point of view - class based OOP is the hack - despite not really using Clojure or FP in my dayjob or hobby projects anymore. Most fun I had with OOP was definitely Common Lisp though.

When it comes to concurrency, what can golang's runtime do that is so special? When I tried it, it seemed like a worse version of Erlang's for people that prefer C style syntax. Depending upon your design space pervasive immutability is a huge boon too and golang doesn't have that but Clojure does - Erlang obviously having that and more.

I always wished clojerl took off.

If it was cheaper to replace the car than get it serviced, they would replace it.

This is doing a lot of work but I'm going to go with a charitable interpretation. I seriously doubt that we'll ever hit a state where replacing a 2 ton vehicle is cheaper than repairing it. And if we do, I'll have to re-evaluate my charitable interpretation, because something shady is likely going on.

The crazy thing is people don't even repair things that are cheaper to repair than replace. Our countertop icemaker broke and my wife wanted to throw it out. I fixed it with 20 minutes of time and a $15 motor from Amazon.

I think the broader trend isn't what's cheapest, its what is easiest, even if its more expensive. People in large part have no idea how to repair anything they own. This mass ignorance is leading to some pretty poor market incentives.

They also seem to point to it being more the harness than the model itself.

spicy autocomplete

A nuclear bomb is just some metal and a very small amount of explosives.