HN user

trklausss

138 karma
Posts0
Comments93
View on HN
No posts found.

This is what I hate about AI. Not that people use it, it's great to accelerate specific workflows, make less mistakes etc. It's just blindly trusting it and just saying "Make a post about a CV library release, make no mistakes" and calling it a day.

Where is the human creativity in writing release notes gone?

This is how I treated LLMs from the beginning, maybe because of my impostor syndrome of not knowing if my understanding of _anything_ is correct, and going down the rabbit hole of the concepts that are presented there...

Now the question to the round: in your opinion, are LLMs ok to learn in this way? At least on the theoretical side of things?

But to me the challenge is that it’s hard to imagine everything that needs to be preemptively captured and prohibited. I have to imagine this stuff for living, and I literally did not think anyone would just move a mouse pointer like this.

In requirements engineering, you do only codify things in the positive sense. The reason behind is that the system shall only do things that are described. If there are no things described, the system shall do nothing.

You can forbid a lot of things, but then you would have pages upon pages of requirements telling you things you may not even wanted implemented in the first place.

Honestly, that doesn't sound too bad. It does not say you can't use LLMs, it just doesn't let LLMs be the author of a commit. Meaning, if you as a developer make yourself responsible for what the LLM wrote, go ahead. But be ready to answer the technical questions, be ready to get grilled in the code review, and be called if you get a CVE on that part of the code...

For all we know, there is a link between cardiac/circulatory problems and arteriosclerosis (that is, loss of elasticity of the vessels).

So it could be that exercise helps keep this elasticity, the same way maybe sauna does? Also antioxidants from vegetables etc.

So it could be that it is a _factor_, but definitely needs way more study.

I am also not in the medical field, but I think arteriosclerosis is a well known link for cardiovascular disease.

Jokes on you I got a 20kWh backup UPS on the entire house.

Now on a serious note: internet can go down anywhere, even for them. There is nowhere stated that, if your old hardware misbehaves, you can use others, and there are privacy concerns with running your stuff on their software stack… So I don’t see a huge advantage honestly.

What's the difference between this and 1. setting my laptop at home and 2. connect it through Tailscale?

I lose ownership of my laptop, you install whatever software you want on it (with the security risks that it conveys) and in turn "you let me connect to my computer"?

What? They should freaking think of sanctions, not about "how easy is to lose Google account". Both Google and Apple are American companies. If someone lands on a sanctions list, they close your account without further notice [1].

Let me get this straight: you can be a defender of human rights, aligned with the country you live in, but if you fall in disgrace with the American government, _you can't even do transactions with your own country_.

So this is fundamentally flawed, and violates the fundamental rights of German citizens in Germany.

[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/british-icc-chief-prosecutor-l...

Knowing the German, how much of a fiasco will this be? Many Germans despise having to go online with specific services due to "Datenschutz". Now you are telling them that they need an external (American) service in order to use this?

What I don't understand is: ELSTER (taxes) already uses electronic signatures, don't these signature already fulfil the requirements of eIDAS? Why do we even need Google/Apple?

Yeah I agree. Since Russia is mostly empty and they have a lot of oil, let's put all refineries there! (/s)

This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.

The question is: if we keep the same context and model, and the same LLM configuration (quantization etc.), does it provide the same output at same prompt?

If the answer is no, then we cannot be sure to use it as a high-level language. The whole purpose of a language is providing useful, concise constructs to avoid something not being specified (undefined behavior).

If we can't guarantee that the behavior of the language is going to be the same, it is no better than prompting someone some requirements and not checking what they are doing until the date of delivery.

Ah, people are starting to see the light.

This is something that could be distilled from some industries like aviation, where specification of software (requirements, architecture documents, etc.) is even more important that the software itself.

The problem is that natural language is in itself ambiguous, and people don't really grasp the importance of clear specification (how many times I have repeated to put units and tolerances to any limits they specify by requirements).

Another problem is: natural language doesn't have "defaults": if you don't specify something, is open to interpretation. And people _will_ interpret something instead of saying "yep I don't know this".

I see the fancy methodologies and processes as the way of streamlining what you have to do in order to "sit down to think about the software", particularly in teams of more than one developer.

Most of it happens, as always, at the interface. So these methodologies help you manage these interfaces between people, machine and product.

It is the HashiCorp fiasco all over again. HashiCorp thinks third-party is profiting from Terraform, they relicense, Terraform gets forked into OpenTofu.

Here, Rebble says Core is profiting from their work (hey, look at your licenses). It would be a direct violation of their ToS though, since there is this clause:

4. Services Usage Limits You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any portion of the Service, use of the Service, access to the Service, or Content accessed through use of the Service, without Rebble’s express written permission.

So I don't know what to think honestly, I don't see any bad actors here...

What do you mean, practices from safety-critical industries applied to security? Unpossible! (end /s)

For that you need regulation that enforces it. On a global scale it is pretty difficult, since it's a country-by-country thing... If you say e.g. for customers in the US, then US Congress needs to pass legislation on that. Trend is however to install backdoors everywhere, so good luck with that.

I'd say is a change of paradigm, and it might be even faster if you have test-driven development... Imagine writing your tests manually, getting LLM code, trying to pass the tests, done.

Of course, golden rules are 1. write the tests yourself, don't let the LLM write them for you and 2. don't paste this code directly on the LLM prompt and let it generate code for you.

In the end it boils down to specification: the prompt captures the loosely-defined specification of what you want, LLM spouts something already very similar to what you want, tweak it, test it, off you go.

With test driven development this process can be made simpler, and other changes in other parts of the code are also checked.

Download responsibly 10 months ago

I mean, at this point I wouldn't mind if they rate-limit downloads. A _single_ customer downloading the same file 10.000 times? Sorry, we need to provide for everyone, try again at some other point.

It is free, yes, but there is no need to either abuse it or give as much resource for free as they can.

Oh boy that strikes a nerve with the "Video memory could be gone after Suspend/Resume". Countless hours lost trying to fix a combination of drivers and systemd hooks for my laptop to be able to suspend/hibernate and wake up back again without issues... Which makes it even more complicated when using Wayland.

I have been looking at high-end laptops with dedicated AMD Graphics chip, but can't find many... So I will probably go with AMD+NVidia with MUX switch, let's see how it goes... Unless someone else has other suggestions?

Every tool for the right job. If you are doing tons of scripting (for e.g. tests on platforms different than Rust), Python can be a solid valid alternative.

Also, tons of CAE platforms have Python bindings, so you are "forced" to work on Python. Sometimes the solution is not just "abandoning a language".

If it fits your purpose, knock yourself out, for others that may be reading: uv is great for Python dependency management on development, I still have to test it for deployment :)

That is true, at least for laptops that came to market after the respective Debian release.

You can however get all stability of a released version with newer packages if you use stable+backports. This would give you a stable system, and allow you to upgrade selected packages to newer versions. This can be tedious, so running testing is also possible.

And well, overall, you can also install other distributions that are bleeding-edge (Arch based?). That's why I like about the distro ecosystem :)

You can always work with backports! It's the way Debian has to bring more recent packages to older stable versions.

https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/

If I'm not mistaken, repo is already included by default, so you just need:

''' # apt install -t trixie-backports <package> '''

This will install backported package _and_ dependencies, so you will be good to go :)