jcgrillo

Upvoted. Only solid reason there is.

> Salt water is also quite a problem

As a boat owner, I have had quite a time with salt water issues. Anything with an electrical current going through it exposed to salt and water is subject to serious, rapid corrosion. What you might imagine is "stainless" steel will, in fact, rust (unless correctly passivated and treated). The galvanic scale is not to be trifled with :). I can only imagine it gets exponentially worse the further below the surface you go.

I quite like welding. Every time a tech job has gotten to the point where it's like "fuck you, fire me or I'll quit" I always fall back on that. If nobody will hire me to program computers, I'm a pretty good fabricator and I can lay down decent welds all day long. MIG, stick, torch, TIG.. whatever you got. It's less money but life isn't all about that.

Nothing wrong with that in principle, I just can't imagine it. I've never worked at FAANGs, but I have at some pretty closely adjacent outfits (swarming with ex-FAANGs) and 3-4yr is just about the most I can stand before I have to quit (or get myself fired) for a while and reset. Whenever push comes to shove between the medieval politicking and just.. engineering fact, I just can't bring myself to throw what I know to be true and accurate under the wheels of petty nonsense. Surely there must be some middle ground, where companies can grow beyond O(100) people and not lose the plot entirely?

For real, though. Why in the fuck do you still work at Facebook? Just quit.

Palpatine himself

I would probably only use these data if I had some script I could run in it for analysis, and even then optimizing my AI chats is probably pretty low value.. certainly not enough to justify the cost of analysis, unless there's something that provides actionable insights with almost zero time investment.

Producing code edits itself is such a small fraction of the job I'm really not convinced these are valuable data. Mostly the effort and time goes into reading and understanding code, not producing or transforming it.

OTOH polishing up the presentation can really improve the experience of a first-time reader of the work (e.g. your code reviewers). If the polishing is done with good intent and proficiency you can make something that was very convoluted and difficult to arrive at digestible with far less effort. It also aids your own understanding: "If we can reduce it to the freshman level that means we really understand it" (or similar I didn't look up the exact quote, attributed to Feynman). If you're polishing something up to make it understandable that's totally different than polishing it up to make yourself seem smart, right?

Fully agree, very icky surveillance vibes. In particular:

> DeltaDB breaks your work into a stream of fine-grained deltas. Where Git captures a snapshot at each commit, DeltaDB captures every operation in between and gives each one a stable identity.

I was curious about giving Zed a try, now that it has an emacs keymap. Not anymore. This is such a horribly invasive feature, I absolutely do not want my colleagues reviewing every single intermediate edit, down to the keystroke, that went into the commits I publish for review.

Before I put a PR up for review, I'll sometimes edit my commit history a little bit in magit to make it more linear and digestible--maybe update descriptions, squash some adjacent commits together, etc. This just throws that whole aspect of the job out the window and says "hey, colleague, hoover up this firehose of deltas and enjoy it".

And what the hell does this even mean?

> What we're really after is simple: the conversation with the agent becomes the only conversation you need to have.

Lmao. No. Wrong.

There's a simpler explanation that fits the data better: they're lying.

Generally, in the past when tech companies have made outlandish claims that were not backed by evidence, they're later found out to have lied. This is an ancient pattern going back to the dotcom era and before, but for recent examples you need only look back a few years to the web3 era. If they're not lying, they can show it by producing the results they claim. Until then, they're probably just lying.

But the things they say they believe are insane and totally unmoored from physical, societal, and economic reality. If they actually believe those things they're untrustworthy because they're delusional. If they don't, they're untrustworthy because they're fraudulent. Either way it's not good..

"crypto bros" to a first approximation

All I'm really saying is that if you want to try to automate a travel agency, LLMs ain't gonna get it done. They'll happily book you a really unsafe trip. So the technology doesn't work in this domain. The whole, empty promise is that this thing is supposed to automate jobs like travel agent away. But it can't. This isn't a "pro" or "anti" position, it's simply that there's no market for the technology here. Or anywhere else (like radiology) where actual responsibility and judgement is important. In fact, I can't think of a single job where it's optional.

A stored program computer, that is a device which can run arbitrary programs from storage, is a pretty rigorously defined thing. Like, we all have a pretty clear shared understanding that things like FPGAs and microcontrollers are computers, whereas you can have integrated circuits which don't have these capabilities.

To be clear, I don't think making elaborate analog ICs would be really "cheating" so long as they don't put a generic von Neumann machine on it.

EDIT: to be more clear, what I'd be trying to achieve with a rule change like this is making "computation" a somewhat larger investment in time and difficulty. By and large, at least in my opinion, profligate, non-essential computation has enabled many of the things that have made the sport less interesting. It's also made cars suck a lot. This would impose kind of a tax on those things.

It should have flatly refused. If you gave a product like that to customers you'd be exposing yourself to unbounded downside liability risk. It's a completely nonviable technology for that kind of application, unless you can somehow make it have judgment. But you can't, because it doesn't reason.

A reasonable travel agent would have fired me as a customer. The LLM failed to do so.

To phrase it maybe a little more provocatively: how would you accomplish the precise timing necessary to achieve spherical implosion? This was possible with analog electronics in 1945. Surely in 2026 we can also build analog piezoelectric fuel injection systems.

> can't run a direct injection gas engine without a digital engine control unit, because the injection timings are much to precise to do mechanically.

This is not accurate, the first production direct injection gasoline automotive engine was in the 1954 Mercedes-Benz 300SL. It's true, you probably won't be running piezoelectric injectors without computer controls, but there's nothing preventing direct injection.

But that would make it interesting. How many of the advances we've made in the past 75yrs could be accomplished some other way if you take the computer away? You don't need a computer to accomplish nanosecond timing. Maybe there's a clever analog way to run piezoelectric injectors.

It would be awesome if they would implement a crude rule: no computers. You can use a computer to design the car--CAD/CAM/CAE are all fine--but no stored program computers are allowed in the race car. I think that would improve F1 tremendously.

I was able to bully an LLM into giving me a 2wk travel itinerary to Somalia. My stipulations were that I wasn't interested in spending any money, so I'd walk everywhere and sleep outside. Getting there and back from Boston took some arguing--I initially suggested stowing away in a shipping container which the LLM claimed was too unsafe. We eventually compromised on sailing as a reasonable alternative. It planned out a whole route with marina stops, calculated fuel burn, etc. I told it I don't need any of that I have an anchor and sails, won't use the engine or marinas (claimed I'd forage for fresh water ashore). It seemed fine with that idea, but raised some safety concerns about piracy. It was eventually satisfied with my answer that I'd bring a lot of guns to fend off pirates. Total trip cost including some 200+ cans of Dinty Moore and 50lb bags of rice came to something like $700.

I don't trust LLMs for this application lol.

Man that's awesome. That's motivation to get one of my vehicles in good enough shape for a day trip (I'm about 3-4hr north depending on choice of route). I have fond memories of Worcester, and of all the places I've been since I'd be most surprised if it's changed much :p

Thank you for the link, and for sharing your story.

Those +P 185gr .45ACP hollow points with the nickel plated cases are pretty sweet. But it's a hell of a lot better to not have to do some kind of Old West standoff shootout shit whenever someone wants to rob something. That was my point. It's so much better instead of hiring a posse of gunfighters, to just trust that the system will (barring anomalies like this one) unfuck itself.

Or pay a guard a fair wage and comp them the $0.20 or whatever for each bullet..

EDIT: to be clear I'm not saying it should be that way, but there was a time not long ago when this was the normal way to handle the situation. I'd argue the present arrangement is more civilized.

Wow! Great to see Coney Island is still there.. I was last there ca. 2007.. Also that's an awesome origin story for your internet handle.

Glad you're getting excellent care and on the mend. Your work is an inspiration, wishing you all the best.

I agree the most interesting use cases I've heard of are about increasing the rigor of software development practices, but there's definitely a lack of coherence in methodology.. I believe that some users and companies are successful in this effort, but the odd (and interesting!) thing is that so far we don't seem to know how to communicate how to do it successfully.

Yeah this seems to be a pretty widespread story, from what I've heard as well. The thing about those janky dashboards and spreadsheets though is that somebody understood them and built them with intent to solve a particular problem. Despite the rickety appearance, they're trustworthy tools. A polished single page app might look nicer but it's harder to debug than an excel sheet, and much less transparent in its internal workings--especially if nobody actually wrote it...

> WTF did Uber build with all of that spend?

WTF did anyone build with all that spend? Despite all the feel-good anecdotes about how productive folks feel using ai coding tools there's a deafening silence when it comes to actual, demonstrated efficacy. How can we be this far entrenched in these workflows and still not know whether they actually do anything useful?

Surely at least dozens of engineers knew about this vulnerability and were either told to shut up about it under pain of negative performance review or stayed quiet because they knew if they spoke up about it they'd be retaliated against. There's no possible way nobody saw this coming.

For a split second I thought there was an actual bug on my phone. It was an excellent article too!