tomtomtom777

Yes. This seems mostly the same for lower-case, except we made a lower loop on the f as well making at one stroke.

Also, our capitals were a bit more complicated, such as having 3 loops in the H.

Going from 720 average to 100,000s peak still doesn't sound realistic. especially as they operate in many timezones.

100k(s) orders per minute is several orders of magnitude more than realistic. Amazon does 20k orders per minute.

Instacart doesn't need "100,000s of grocery delivery orders per minute".

There must be some 0s added for the sake of the story.

Please use HTTPS.

I use HTTPS only. I don't think HTTP is acceptable for anyone let alone a technical blog post. It takes a few minutes, and it prevents me and all your visitors from getting all kinds of MITM injections.

Thanks.

The spec states:

The coordinate reference system for all GeoJSON coordinates is a geographic coordinate reference system, using the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) [WGS84] datum, with longitude and latitude units of decimal degrees.

So that seems to be a misuse of the format. Using a geojson library for this may get you into trouble with ranges or antimeridian cutting.

Can you explain what the "No Gender" extension is about and why it is a must?

This proposal is really harmed by the name.

There is a reason none the existing methods use the word "TRACK". Although connecting home can be used for tracking it doesn't have to be.

If a tool uses connecting home for telemetry, implementing "DO_NOT_TRACK" would suggest it does track its users without the setting, even if it may not.

Rename it this to "DO_NOT_CONNECT_HOME" and it may be a useful standard.

At 3x5 it states:

The "M", "W" and "Q" suffer, but it's still got a distinct O and zero.

The Q is weird; I would think it makes more sense to draw it as a zero with the bottom right set.

I am responding to someone that used OIL presumably because it is - although incorrect - more clear as an example for those that are not into trading.

The fact that is used to make profit doesn't absolve us from any moral judgement. Buying stocks of a company improves its financial position allowing it to grow.

Would you buy stocks of ClusterBombsInc over CureForCancerInc because it has slightly better prospects?

how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing?

Yes. That's why it's illegal to short-sell your stocks just before you announce that your company is broke.

There are no such regulations when betting on a bomb dropping on a boat.

Wow. I am not sure how to respond to this as you seem to have a completely different mindset. You mean to say it is "proven" not to be a solid strategy as in not maximizing profit?

Surely, you acknowledge that funding something is a rather direct way of actively supporting it. It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. If you buy OIL to make money, you are still responsible for the additional investment made in oil, and are still shaping the future, whether you like it or not.

Actually yes. I put my money in things I would like to see shape the future, which I think is what investment should be about: shaping the future.

But disregarding this admittedly niche attitude; it's not the same thing. If you're opening bets on the ships being bombed before a certain date, you're opening incentives for people to do so. Although buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives.

You don't have to imagine some giant conspiracy. Fact is, that everyone can make a bet, and there are a lot of people with knowledge and influence in the political decisions made.

In sports, at least the outcome is only effected by the sportsmen. Here, who knows which and how many people have inside knowledge and influence that they can use that to their financial advantage?

Well, it would be if everyone betting wouldn't have an influence on the outcome. That's "wisdom of the crowds". But what if the people putting money on the Strait being closed are the same that close them? Surely, that's no longer the wisdom of the crowds at play. Just perverse incentives.

This is a nice overview, but please remove the PolyMarket indicator. It is an obscene prediction mechanism as it creates horrible financial incentives to a war situation. Its degenerate effects have been featured here before. [1]

Let's not condone "measurements" that are effectively ways for people to gain money on important political decisions, affecting the lives of many people.

(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822

2045 A=~1.0 seems way off. CRQC is still a theoretical construct with hurdles to overcome. Yes, there is a significant risk that it will exist somewhere in the next decades, but there is also still a significant chance that it will be shown to be practically impossible.

The Bitcoin core devs can issue a word-of-god statement stating that they'll roll back the chain to before the attack, and all is well. Then they'll change the cryptography.

That doesn't work, because once the signature scheme has been broken, nobody can prove that their coins are theirs. No roll back or word-of-god would help.

The only way to make bitcoin quantum-safe, is to introduce a quantum safe signature scheme, to encourage everyone to move their coins and to somehow accept that those who don't are not longer in control of their coins.

"It is only the unimaginative who ever invents. The true artist is known by the use he makes of what he annexes. And he annexes everything."

- Oscar Wilde

I understand that this is a good idea but it does feel really weird. Add a min-release-age to see if anyone who doesn't gets bitten.

Next up, we're going to advise a minimum-release-age of 14 days, cause most other projects use 7 days.

I think that's horribly fatalistic perspective.

Yes, humans can be bad. But humans can change. Let's not start accepting bad stuff as not so bad, simply because it is "just human behavior".

Absolutely horrifying.

Today they are bribing journalists to report on a bomb.

Tomorrow they will be bribing armies to bomb.

This needs to be banned.

If the result is always provably correct it doesn't matter whether or not it's different at the code level. People interested in systems like this believe that the outcome of what the code does is infinity more important than the code itself.

If the spec is so complete that it covers everything, you might as well write the code.

The benefit of writing a spec and having the LLM code it, is that the LLM will fill in a lot of blanks. And it is this filling in of blanks that is non-deterministic.

Effectively, the error is ignored although it might be logged. Thus our HTML is fine in practice.

That is not the right mindset to create good things. If it's an error, it's not fine.

Well, they do mention they are looking up whether it exists during the interview, so it's a forgivable mistake.

How did you know how well these results work?

You mention the quality several times in the article but it's not clear how this is verified. Do you have a set of known-location-ip-addresses around the world (apart from your home)? Or are we just assuming that latency is a good indicator?

Modern LLM's are very widely trained. You can simply tell it to speak like a tech bro.

I agree, and like to add,

It is hands down good for code which is laborious or tedious to write, but once done, obviously correct or incorrect (with low effort inspection).

The problem here is, that it fills in gaps that shouldn't be there in the first place. Good code isn't laborious. Good code is small. We learn to avoid unnecessary abstractions. We learn to minimize "plumbing" such that the resulting code contains little more than clear and readable instructions of what you intend for the computer to do.

The perfect code is just as clear as the design document in describing the intentions, only using a computer language.

If someone is gaining super speeds by providing AI clear design documents compared to coding themselves, maybe they aren't coding the way they should.

Are we living on the same planet?

Surely the public discourse over the past decades has been steadily moving from substantive towards labeling each other villains, not the other way around.

Still, wouldn't a wifi meshnet be a better choice for these scenario's?