injidup

I checked the date but no.

It doesn't work because politicians are not allowed to admit failure. A politician who admits that they tried something, no matter how small, and it didn't work, is fish food. This means there is no difference in downside, for the politician, between going all in on a big decision with huge risk versus taking baby steps. The politician is dead no matter what. They either keep claiming the bad decision was a good one in the hope that something turns up, or eventually resign or get voted out. But if they ever dare to publicly change their point of view in the presence of new evidence, they are accused of the worst crime a politician can commit. They are a "flip-flopper."

Tidal should simply ban AI generated music from upload if they are not willing to pay uploaders should the music become popular. Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

The

"Appreciate it" / "cool carry on"

Is exactly the sort of confusing non choice options cookie banners give. Along the lines of

"Accept all" / "more information"

Then I'll retract my claim but it is bad UX to make a popup on the landing page that looks like an evil cookie banner.

[flagged]

I love these posts from randos on hackernews.

XXXX is completely buggy and unusable

Which is amusing because experience shows that XXXX is not buggy and very much usable.

Ummmmm.

https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/agents/agents-window

Last weekend a group of friends and I sat by the lake. One had a guitar, and we were all singing off-key to old classics and dancing to salsa and reggaeton. We were doing it together, and it was great. Much more fun than listening alone or caring about the authenticity of the music or not. It was the participation, not the product, that was the key.

Something went wrong with music and culture in recent times. Participation became consumption. Everybody got their own headphones, channels, and separate cultural bubbles. Concerts became about filming a DJ twiddling a USB controller.

By the lake we tried to get people up and dancing, and one of the girls led a reggaeton/zumba/salsa session. I had one woman come up and ask for advice on where to go to get dance lessons. But most people sat there watching, clearly wanting to take part but scared. People have learned that creativity and participation are not welcome.

The most amazing thing was a little 10-year-old girl who just sat herself down in our group of adults. She was so happy to see people singing and dancing. We chatted to her for a while, and then it turned out she could play guitar, so we gave her one and she jammed along. Her mother was observing from a distance and was happy to see her daughter connecting and participating with strangers.

I don't think the issue is between AI and authentic music. This argument about authenticity in music is ages old. It's more about the imbalance in participation between producer and consumer. If AI music allows someone with less formal musical skills to feel like they are joining in and making something, then maybe it has its value.

Still, I'll always be more impressed watching someone play their trained fingers over a piano or guitar. There is more magic in that than prompting an AI. But if the music is just a backing track to some other participatory activity like dancing, then the equation is different again. I honestly couldn't tell — or maybe care — if many of the Bachata songs played at parties are fully or partially AI-generated. I suspect a lot are. But most of the reason I'm there is not to fetishize the authenticity of music, but to hang out with friends and dance and have a good time.

Why do people keep writing this drivel. Obviously written by an LLM itself. What they are describing and which doesn't work is one shotting a fix. Almost or probably no human can one shot a fix to a significant working system.

The human / llm needs to have some form of error correction signal. Either you have a corpus of tests or proof system that prevent regressions.

If you have a working system with no tests or validation and let a human loose on it then it will break. How is this different?

The irony of a tool designed to enforce usability and discoverability that which itself is unusable and undiscoverable.

In Austria I'm always in the situation that shops and restaurants are unhappy that I pay by card because they claim that even a direct debit card cost them some large percentage through the terminal provider.

Will these new systems remove the middle man skimming that MasterCard/Visa has been doing to small businesses?

Anybody remember "wobbly windows"? It never sticks.

Stopped reading at.

computers handle math just fine with a finite allowance of digits.

Go try and write yourself a robust algorithm to do booleans on polygons or calculate a voronoi diagram. The finite nature of floating point is the mother of all leaky abstractions and bites you in the arse any time you think you are smart enough to roll your own algorithms.

Decentralized version control only works if there is some way to find and access those distributed repositories. For many reasons and no matter the tech there is always a drift towards having a centralized registry so that the degrees of separation for individual actors is minimised. Be that a search engine or code forge or social network.

For *most* users, fully distributed and disconnected is a bug not a feature.

You got it the wrong way round. It's more akin to.

1. Training data is the source. 2. Training is compilation/compression. 3. Weights are the compiled source akin to optimized assembly.

However it's an imperfect analogy on so many levels. Nitpick away.

What is this YOLO-c++ compiler that is referenced in the article? Google searches turn up nothing and chatgpt seems not to know it either.

The test doesn't follow the correct procedures for diagnosing autism and after a thorough reading of the DSM-5-TR I could find no mention of German a mental illness being and I challenge anyone to me wrong prove.

A replacement for CMake/Ninja using golang.

https://github.com/bradphelan/nuke-engine/blob/trunk/USERGUI...

After a day of hating on CMake generator expressions I just wanted a proof of concept that something better is possible.

An example build is https://github.com/bradphelan/nuke-engine/blob/trunk/example...

In the same way that scanning and identifying your microwave for food you put inside it is not the same as scanning your house and reading the letters in your postbox.

Your browser is a subset of your computer and lives inside a sandbox. Breaching that sandbox is certainly a much more interesting topic than breaking GDPR by browser fingerprinting.

This is not true. Onshape was built with versioning and diffing as a first class capability.

https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/Document/compare.htm https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/Document/versions_and_h...

Code diffing of something that is very visual is quite poor UX.

https://cad.onshape.com/FsDoc/

You are right but I also kind of did mean it that way. I believe that Parasolid is at heart of Onshape, the true kernel. Then on top of that is a compatibility layer describing the set of low level operations available to featurescript. I'm sure that not everything in Parasolid is available to featurescript and perhaps there are some things added that are not in Parasolid. Featurescript also contains the selector/query logic for programatically picking geometry. Whether that comes from Parasolid I am not sure. I haven't worked with featurescript for a number of years now but when I did I was amazed. I managed to make an operation for taking any solid from the UI and generating customized interlocking ribbing. The idea was hollow surfboard design. It worked and I left it at that. Never built the surfboard!

However the downside with featurescript and I think a big mistake on their part was to use a custom language rather than python or javascript. Featurescript is almost javascript but with some syntax changes and magic DSL's. You are also forced to use the inbuilt editor which is horrible and if you have burned VIM keybinding into your nerve endings, going back to non modal editing is horrible.

Also the discovery of featurescript modules in the community has terrible UX. It's super weird that they have such a great system but finding useful extensions is horrible.

The fun thing is that onshape itself has a very thin kernel. Most of what you see as built in features are actually featurescript based. Onshape provides the source code for their built in feature set as a reference. https://cad.onshape.com/documents/12312312345abcabcabcdeff/w... You do need an account login ( free ) to view it.

These types of CAD scripting tools are great but always try to position themselves as an “alternative” to GUI-driven CAD, whereas in reality they are complementary. OnShape got it right with FeatureScript (https://cad.onshape.com/FsDoc/ ), which provides a very similar experience to Build123d at the scripting level. However, the insight that OnShape got right is that these scripts automatically become available as possible nodes within the history-based modeller. The OnShape UI is infinitely extendable beyond the fixed set of tools that comes with the base modeller.

Build an FOSS CAD front end using something like Build123d as the extension engine, and then add hooks so the user can select edges, surfaces, objects, etc., and feed them to inputs on the scripts. The output of the script is then the new state of the history-based modeller. That would be killer

I'm confused about what this solves. They give the example of someone editing a function and someone deleting the same function and claim that the merge never fails and then go on to demonstrate that indeed rightly the merges still fails. There are still merge markers in the sources. What is the improvement exactly?

They bootstrap a workflow with a prompt then build an orchestrator off that then prompt it to be converted to an opencode plugin and then prompt a website to be generated advertising it and then prompt a tool that reviews hacker news feedback and automatically incorporates feedback into next generation of the tool. At the end of the week they go to their manager and complain they are out of tokens for the actual job they are being paid for.

Our stack is msvc / cmake / ninja / incredibuild ? Can you support such things?

It's so frustrating seeing all this sandbox tooling pop up for linux but windows is soooooo far behind. I mean Windows Sandbox ( https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/applicati... ) doesn't even have customizable networking white lists. You can turn networking on or off but that's about as fine grained as it gets. So all of us still having to write desktop windows stuff are left without a good method of easily putting our agents in a blast proof box.

Can you explain how to take advantage. Is there any specific info from anthropic with regards to context window size and not having to care about MCP?

It does help.

(random research paper but there are many. Nit pick if you like) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6760384/

However two thing can at the same time be true. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous and destructive drugs in society and also whisky in the evening by the fire can chill you out.