HN user

skywhopper

11,530 karma
Posts5
Comments3,161
View on HN

“In order to serve our customers better, we are phasing out the ‘Pro’ and ‘Plus’ plans, which will be replaced with new ‘Premium’ and ‘Extra’ plans. In addition, our ‘Business’ plans are now being replaced by improved ‘Corporate’ plans.”

The idea that we can’t get enough electrical power on earth because of supply constraints, but that we can solve that by launching the datacenters and their entire support infrastructure into space makes no sense unless you’re a huckster trying to pump up your space launch business ahead of an IPO. There’s no way we are more constrained on land-based solar+battery equipment than we would be on space-worthy solar+battery+space-cooling equipment plus sufficient launch infrastructure and resources. Meanwhile, our government is paying companies to stop building wind power and bombing sources of natural gas.

Twain seems the obvious choice, so yeah I’m disappointed they didn’t even mention him. Given that they invited submissions, I’d have loved to see a bigger variety, rather than two Frosts and two “no one”s. Those are both good choices, but not super interesting to read two of when other choices are left out.

This is exactly the sort of thing that’s not possible, though. An AI will not be able to detect a “lambda loop” because it will look exactly like a “successful lambda rollout”. This sort of watchdog would just as likely shut down the wrong things and make AWS feel a lot less safe.

Wow. “We asked the wrong question and used the wrong tool to get a questionable answer, and then decided to publish it.” I guess the answer is yes?

It’s exhausting to read comments like yours where you are clearly triggered by a grammatical construction and reacting far more formulaically than the comment you’re addressing. The reason AI follows these grammatical patterns is because real humans also write that way. I personally identified with the word “consistency” specifically. Yes, that and quality are what I value in CarPlay.

I would add to this other purposes of code review:

* to share knowledge among the team — if code has been reviewed then at least two people know about it

* to ensure the changes won’t cause problems with other systems or future plans — maybe we will be rolling out a new logging system soon and we don’t want to solve the problem in this specific way

* a chance for the reviewer and reviewee to learn something about the system or the code via the review discussion

* team coherence — code that’s well reviewed is a team effort. Working together on small things like code reviews helps teammates work better together on other tasks in the future

What is your complaint exactly? Is it better that this includes all government services? I think most folks would not immediately think of schools if the headline said “county government buildings”. I think it’s a reasonable editorial choice to emphasize school buildings in the headline.

Neither do the developers, because until recently, RAM was so cheap it didn’t matter, and we were in a situation where almost no one ever needed to consider “how much RAM will this take?” when writing code.

Claude Tag 28 days ago

I’d say you are wrong about the “anti-AI sentiment”. It’s possible to recognize the tool works well in general and also objectively observe as it adds contradictory features and evolves behavior in ways to encourage token waste. Claude Code CLI is also a very narrow part of their portfolio at the moment.

The US government isn’t supposed to be allowed to constrain speech, but they do have the power to constrain commerce, and they can ban the sale of AI services and AI-capable hardware if they choose.

The Coming Loop 29 days ago

It’s because it matches the patterns they are trained to follow. They don’t understand the code. They can’t reason about the actual logic flow. They can only work with patterns.