HN user

phanimahesh

282 karma

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/phanimahesh; my proof: https://keybase.io/phanimahesh/sigs/NadMajoHlBwZBT2PBlfdDwb-X1SgUSg6MuDYl7eU5-Q ]

Posts2
Comments167
View on HN

A powertool that needs discretion and good judgement to be used well is being restricted to people with a track record of displaying good judgement. I see nothing wrong here.

AI enables volume, which is a problem. But it is also a useful tool. Does it increase review burden? Yes. Is it excessively wasteful energy wise? Yes. Should we avoid it? Probably no. We have to be pragmatic, and learn to use the tools responsibly.

That blog post is very light on details can be condensed to a single line/paragraph. LSM trees are more efficient for SSDs and modern databases use them.

I don't know enough to comment yet but will go read about it.

Can you share examples of new database architectures and products using them that are built for SSDs?

I'm sure we have different capabilities and constraints, but I am unaware of any fundamentally different approaches to indexes.

Claude Opus 4.6 6 months ago

I only see **. Must be the security. When you type your password it gets converted to **.

Before commenting water is cheap and plentiful please read the proposed definition.

Water bankruptcy refers to “a state in which a human-water system has spent beyond its hydrological means for so long that it can no longer satisfy the claims upon it without inflicting unacceptable or irreversible damage to nature.”

AI Usage Policy 6 months ago

An unenforced threat is toothless. Publicly stating we do not appreciate XYZ pr that was ai generated, low effort and in bad faith is perfectly acceptable.

AI Usage Policy 6 months ago

Very little, until it stops being stupid in many ways. We don't need smart, we need tools to not be stupid. An unreliable tool is more dangerous and more useless than having no tool.

There are different kinds of mocks.

Check function XYZ is called, return abc when XYZ is called etc are the bad kind that people were bit badly by.

The good kind are a minimally correct fake implementation that doesn't really need any mocking library to build.

Tests should not be brittle and rigidly restate the order of function calls and expected responses. That's a whole lot of ceremony that doesn't really add confidence in the code because it does not catch many classes of errors, and requires pointless updates to match the implementation 1-1 everytime it is updated. It's effectively just writing the implementation twice, if you squint at it a bit.

Definitely. Horrible formatting and explanations, bunch of facts mashed together without coherence, weird references to netizens. I wonder how bad the model and prompt must have been to arrive at this.