Hammershaft

Because LLMs are not humans, and the code they produce will have a different distribution of failure modes than human written code, so attribution is useful info while reviewing?

Clojure programmers tend to be some of the highest paid[1] on average of any language, so I'd lean more towards a lack of appeal.

[1] https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2019#technology-_-what-langu...

It's fascinating that Clojure has consistently the best performing solutions and yet at the same time such a low success rate.

Do you have an idea as to why that is?

If I had to guess, two things lowering reliability:

A) Balancing parens might be tough on an LLM one-shot.

B) LLMs generate tokens sequentially, but s-expressions mean the first forms to be evaluated in a body are usually the last to be written, so the LLM has to sequentially generate layers of evaluation backwards.

As someone who loves Clojure, I wonder about the real portability across host languages. Do you have experience with any of these other dialects? (beyond the obvious CLJS & Babashka?)

Absolutely agree. Recently learning emacs with vertico/consult/orderless/embark has had me thinking constantly about how needlessly crippled most OS windowing system workflows are.

It is absolutely painful for interviewers and candidates. I used to be able to email managers & founders directly and discuss what they were looking for... today everybody is navigating a deluge of spam and the interview process is becoming dysfunctional.

Pangram says this comment is %100 LLM generated.

It certainly reads as LLM generated!

I agree. I'm as skeptical as many commenters but I also think the degree of polarization in HN around this technology and the degree to which people are calling those with different views shills or naysayers is pretty sad.

There's nothing sneaky about terms & conditions. If the gov wants a service they legally need to abide by its terms, same as us, if they don't like it they should choose another product.

Anthropic doesn't want their AI used for misaligned mass surveillance scanners and killbots, there are obvious reasons they might not want that.

We only know that people vote (slightly) blue in an inconsequential twitter poll. I think it's likely in a real scenario like this red would win.

I'm sure you're right that AI augmented workflows can (& do?) produce beautiful works that I would call art... it's just that the overwhelming majority of AI 'art' I experience on the internet is slop.

There are so many basic gaps in functionality and so many underbaked & poorly designed Mac OS features that I end up papering over with paid 3rd party applications.

Apple hardware is incredible but the OS software & increasingly the design is mid at best.

I've directly experienced this and it is roughly as sane and effective as it sounds.

I notice the title mentions the author is a former employee but he never mentions the terms on which he left.

I agree it's disturbing and sad.

Vaccine mandates are more difficult. If this mother's freedom wasn't violated then she would only risk herself and her baby. If somebody doesn't take a vaccine they place risk on many other people (mostly children) who can't be vaccinated by weakening herd immunity.

Is that necessarily true or just incidentally true in certain metros given the regulatory restrictions we have now?

Our food is supplied via markets and yet with just subsidies almost nobody starves across western countries.

You're defending a government using force to prevent terminally ill people from voluntarily experimenting on themselves to find a cure and further our understanding of disease. It should not be easier for a layman to design and build a targeted mRNA vaccine then it is to navigate a regulatory maze.

The animal is terminally ill and the vaccine's slated purpose is to cure that illness. If you're rich & terminally ill these kinds of regulatory mazes are less of a burden, but if you're poor you'll likely die before you can get approval.

There's pictures of the dogs tumor progression and scientists from government labs validating his story.

I think people & companies get value from these markets because they are able to plan on the basis of accurate forecasts for scenarios like potential wars and election results.

I agree that these markets also create bad incentives, I just think that on net the information provided tends to be more valuable.

The findings are consistent with academic research that these markets are well calibrated.

Why? We have years of experimental evidence that these prediction markets are well calibrated (ie accurate).

1. That is not how prediction market calibration plots work! Calibration is measured across the range of markets with different forecasted odds.

https://calibration.city/introduction

https://manifold.markets/calibration

2. That is just obviously not all these markets are doing. They're aligning incentives and aggregating information in the same way other markets do.

I disagree.

Prediction markets have value for people as a source of reliable information because they tend to be very accurate compared to any other human mechanism for creating forecasts.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/pr...

Prediction markets also have very interesting ideas.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/pr...

The question isn't whether futarchy isn't perfect, it's whether its better than our existing democracy.

There might be selection effects in who posts their score. (got 0.0027 btw :p)

Cost is not a minor thing considering the suffering that poverty creates.

What makes this 'shit' for you compared to the fruits we've conventionally engineered into unnatural forms via selective breeding?