CBLT

The Google Drive link is to a simple tarball, not a git artifact.

Non-sequitor? They're not providing a (sha-1) hash, they're providing source code to integration partners using their business channels, not public git providers. Those business channels include contracts etc to "secure their supply chain".

You and I aren't in those business channels, and we're not being given anything with a hash. There's simply no hash to collide with?

It doesn't break supply chain security for anybody with power to change the situation.

Interestingly, this was tackled in this blog post[0] a month ago. They claim that plan files aren't token-efficient, because after reading the plan the workhorse model then reads all the relevant files anyways.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48916512

That's a measure of the costs GitHub incurs to operate, not of its value as a platform.

I heat it bare, then seconds before I put the steak in I pour some peanut oil, which immediately begins smoking.

I've tried a blowtorch and a barbecue, but they're not as good as cast iron. Best results from just spending $15 on a second cast iron.

Article aside, I generally always use the "we" pronoun at work when writing prose. Saying "I" feels too adversarial when talking about negative effects, or too self-aggrandizing when talking about positive effects. For example: "We discovered a bug shipped at the end of the merge window, so we will restart validation with the rollback applied." I think in school they say the business-safe way to write is instead with the passive voice but I just can't do it.

Generating new conjectures is easy. It's generating novel conjectures that's hard.

I said "never called them on their plausible deniability" to mean I never pulled off the veil of the conversation, so there's nothing to talk about in front of a judge.

FWIW both the company I was leaving and the company I was joining were startups selling dynamic seat pricing systems to airlines. Your call if that's a conflict of interest :).

The only time I did that, the company I was leaving begged me to take one of their corp laptops with me so I could offer "consulting" to them on the side. I never called them on their plausible deniability, I just said I felt that would be a conflict of interest and they shut up real fast.

I'm trying to understand what you mean, because it's not obvious to me at all. If you read LKML you'll see stacked PRs has been the norm for years. I'm assuming you want the `gh stack` porcelain into the git cli? We'd first need to add PRs as a porcelain to the git cli for it to make any sense, right?

The interim policy you're proposing seems to have far different priors. The clearest indication of their stance is that they don't even want bug reports that have AI generate part of the text. You don't take a stand like that (imo) unless you've experienced some serious AI-related burnout.

SQL/PGQ (Property Graph Queries) is part of the SQL standard as of 2023. I found this project months ago _because_ they included PGQ in their name, I was searching for PGQ implementations.

Not by name, sure, but it does mention that you're going to be reading the same context into the second model. It specifically refutes your point that you're only reading the smaller plan:

> Opus reads base.py, signing.py, the test file (twenty cards of gray), then writes its plan and leaves. And what's the first thing Flash does with that beautiful document? It re-reads base.py and the test file, because a plan is not a file and you cannot edit prose. The gray reads just keep stacking, first at Opus prices, then again at Flash prices. There is no version of this where a second reader is the cost optimization.

Memory is a harness feature, not a model feature.

The author is probably only evaluating their own harness with different models, so Claude-Code-specifics like memory aren't part of their evaluation.

Linked your own project with an "All rights reserved" license? The only thing my company will allow me to do with that software is have AI steal it </s>

I'm not really sure memcached optimizes for operational simplicity. The only time I've run it at scale, it would have low cpu utilization then unexpectedly hit lock contention and fall over without warning.

I also like having long, pointed conversations with LLMs as I review code. Then when I'm done, it's different code, and it has all of my blind spots and knowledge gaps, so I cannot effectively review it anymore.

It's like turning a code review that requests you, into a code review that requests someone else. And it tramples on the original author quite a bit too. It's hard only having the ability to add incremental value to large amounts of code, instead of large amounts of value to incremental code.

> Imagine a big codebase with this somewhere in it:

    fn processThing(thing: Thing) void {
       // this function must always be invoked on
       // a thing that has already been started
       assert(thing.is_started);
   
       // ...
    }

I know you mentioned fuzzing earlier in the article but seriously, fuzzing deserves an extra mention after asking me to imagine that.

Eh, it's worse than that. The GP comment is repeating a joke derived from an Onion headline about gun control. Where the very poignant message is about political will to make change. However, the npm ecosystem is very much willing and has already made several changes. If we're going to engage in discussion instead of meme-posting, the GP should have (imo) included real commentary _in addition to_ the meme they really wanted to post. What is the policy they want? Why do they see the NPM ecosystem as still resistant to change?

I've been oncall for a different G service that nearly paged on every error. It used the standard error budget tooling, but on hundreds of user buckets because the engineering around locality-specific configuration was... suspect. Many of these buckets had single-digits user. If a user was on their phone and lost signal, I was paged. Very poor oncall experience.

> idiomatic, readable C++ code

I disagree with this characterization of the generated primes.cpp shown here.

People are quick to point out that induced demand exists - especially people that aren't fond of change.

Very broadly speaking, people mis-estimate effect sizes in economics by orders of magnitude. Induced demand is just their foothold to claim an effect exists, before they go about claiming the effect size they want to see.

I use a PR notifier chrome extension, so I have a badge on the toolbar whenever a PR is waiting on me. I get to them in typically <2 minutes during work hours because I tab over to chrome whenever AI is thinking. Sometimes I even get to browse HN if not enough PRs are coming and not too many parallel work sessions.

I've had great experiences being managed twice by very humble engineers who've made the transition to EM. Both were sacked within the year by their boss because they didn't play the corporate politics game.

I can <C-z> while less is running to background that process using the shell, so the shell is clearly not completely gone.

I might be misremembering, but I think I just had to rebind <C-x> in zsh to get less working.

If you're following a pipe (such as `kubectl logs | less +F`), <C-c> is sent to all processes in a pipeline, so it stops less from following and it stops the other process entirely. Then you can't start following again with F, or load more data in with G.

Less provides an alternative of <C-x> to stop following, but that is intercepted by most shells.

Is my adblocker blocking them? I only saw the stack of tars in a coat. Didn't break the article's flow for me.

My current company started on AWS/GCP for the credits. Right now we're on Lambda for the GPU prices and GKE for some webservers that we cba to move. We dual-upload data to s3 and gcs still (which isn't too expensive, it's effectively write-only and the auto-archive features work for us). Cloud SQL database but pgBackRest to the other cloud.

We're not HA across clouds; we decided to chase RPO over RTO.