amoss

no database for this project - the data model has a simple text representation so it gets serialized out to a folder/file layout on disk that goes into version control. single self-contained binary: contains the web/websockets server, backend logic, parser/serialization. there is a separate component in python that sits behind an internal network connection to handle an execution sandbox.

You may be surprised by how much easier it is to dump the framework/stack and just write it from scratch. I say this because I too work on compilers and have a crud app as a personal project. The first versions were a nightmare in various frameworks and since I switched to a C++ backend / vanilla .js frontend it has been incredibly easy to write.

The rate was 1% so this does not mean that "many" people are using LLMs despite claiming not to.

This comment doesn't seem to fit the discussion at all?

The discussion is not about humans using LLLs to write papers. It is about humans who agreed not to use LLVM in reviewing papers, then did exactly that.

As the DJ is an interface to shuffle, and the author specifically wants to listen to unshuffled music the lack of intelligence may not be entirely in the AI.

No side profile pics on the page. My only concern would be can it lay flat on a table for taking notes or does it have a camera bulge that makes it wobble?

I would imagine that the target audience has an attention span and literacy level that allows reading sixteen thousand words without too much trouble.

I personally love the appearance of the tl;dr about a third of the way through, that is some S tier trolling.

Remarkably it has only cost a few trillion dollars to get here!

Reasonable hypothesis. Supported by data. Seems legit

Nobody wants to admit that we are living through this: https://xkcd.com/1319/

But at scale. Yegge gets close to it in this blog (which actually made me lol, good to see that he is back on form), but shies away from it.

If AI is producing a real productivity boom then we should be seeing a flood of high-quality non-AI related software. If building and shipping software is now easier and faster then all of the software that we have that doesn't quite work right should be displaced by high quality successors. It should be happening right now.

So where is it? Why is all this velocity going into tooling around AI instead? Face it, an entire industry has fallen into the trap of building the automation instead of the product they were trying to automate the production of.

Where is the new high quality C compiler that actually compiles the linux kernel to a measurably higher quality than gcc? If AI is really increasing productivity shouldn't we have that instead of a press-oriented hype flop?

gasche has been active on various forums over the years, and yes can confirm that he has infinite patience.

This discussion is a request for positive examples to demonstrate any of the recent grandiose claims about ai assisted development. Attempting to switch instead to attacking the credentials of posters only seems to supply evidence that there are no positive examples, only hype. It doesn't seem to add to the conversation.

If its too large you could just subtract 2*8 and try again.

The first text on the page says:

> The operating system for the next generation of gamers

This is redefining the cutting edge of trolling.

There is a world of difference between the obvious and the trivial. The post you are replying to only implied it was obvious, the retort is unnecessary.

When you work on compilers, all bugs are compiler bugs.

(apart from the ones in the firmware, and the hardware glitches...)

This sounds kind of wild. Love your choice of font. It mentions in the text that your code base is open source - is there a link?

I would prefer that contenteditable divs with multi-line contents would handle newlines in a consistent manner instead of the chaotic mess we have now. But I guess that doesn't pump stock valuations so AI slop it is.

The flat shape of the "r" and the lack of curvature on the "p" where it touches the stem would drive me mad, but YMMV.

Not my kind of thing but still a highly enjoyable read. I love a tale of a software engineer who has gone down a rabbit-hole so deeply that they've come out the other side. And who doesn't like data?

Company that makes vast profits from its monopoly over a digital market is against legislation to stop companies from exploiting monopolies over digital markets.

I am shocked!

Ironically, rather than being facile the point of the comparison is to explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law to people who are clearly not familiar with it.

When I read that "Ilya gave a famously incomprehensible talk about the connections between intelligence and compression" it makes me wonder if Marcus Hutter has now been forgotten? If so more people should take a look at http://prize.hutter1.net/

On the contrary, modern research shows that the effects would be more severe and long-lasting: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006jd00...

$17 is about £12.69 at the moment so there does not seem to be any dishonesty in the claim.

Is the front supposed to fall off?

At first glance it looks similar to the Monty Hall problem, but it is actually a different problem.

In the Monty Hall problem there is added information in the second round from the informed choice (removing the empty box).

In this problem we don't have the same two-stage process with new information. If the previous process was fair then we know the remaining candidate was better than the eliminated male (and female) candidates. We also know the remaining female candidate was better than the eliminated male (and female) candidates.

So the size of the initial pools does not tell us anything about the relative result of evaluating these two candidates. Most people would choose the candidate from the smaller pool though, using an analogue of the Gambler's Fallacy.

Missed all of that, thanks for the explanation. Why doesn't zig try and apply the coercion before the type switch - is this deliberate for safety?