jdw64

I'm a non-native english, so I change the code myself, but I tend to participate in communities while using a translator. If I use AI, I can fix bigger things, but most of what I contribute to open source is finding small bugs, so I don't use AI for open source contributions. (I mostly don't even have the ability to make big changes.) Looking around open source like that a few times, I can understand the hatred toward AI to some degree: too many requests pour onto a single individual. Of course, that doesn't mean AI isn't helpful. In my view, AI writes code blocks better than I do, and it might even be better to use AI for some of the open source I've contributed to... but overall, I feel that some kind of system for filtering AI-based PRs is needed.

Recently, an agency that used to give me work handed me an app they had built using AI.[1] But even though they had used only the best AI of the time, like Astra and Fable, in reality it had many bugs and many wrong points. If you're not a programmer, there's a lot of room to make mistakes even if you use AI. So honestly, I don't believe the claim that Fable can do everything. It's smart, and it writes code blocks far better than I do, and it writes algorithms far better than I do. But that doesn't mean it has the global consistency a program should have.

[1]https://www.makonea.com/en-US/casual/fixing-a-vibe-coded-app

Thank you for taking the time to let me know the keywords. I’m grateful for your kindness, and have a good day.

Thank you for your kind answer. I understand EBS as, in other words, virtualized storage, so then somewhere the logical block addresses have to be connected to actual physical storage devices, right? Then where and how is that mapping implemented? If you just give me the keywords, I’ll search for them myself.

Since I’m a freelance programmer, I mainly work on small-to-medium-sized projects, so I don’t know much about this kind of infrastructure programming.

But why was EBS chosen instead of NVMe, which is faster? Since I only know how to use cloud programming and don’t understand the internal implementation, I don’t really get why it works out this way. Is it because of ease of backup? Or data movement?

very thanks!

Looking at the destruction of Yandex data centers, these days it shows how terrifying drones are as weapons. I'm curious about how to defend against such drones. Are kamikaze drones a method of exploding on a target after image learning?

좋은 하루보내세요:) I hope it goes well. In my area of Ulsan, there are many workers who speak languages other than Korean, and your idea seems promising.

It seems that in some sentences, the Korean ending '다 da' is not being output. the AI definitely write better than me.

P.S. I checked the issue: when I input '다.', it outputs '다', but when I input '다', it outputs '디'.

thanks!

But what's the most Reward checks anyone has ever held?

Lobbying is corruption. That is a fair statement. Of course, the dictionary definition of lobbying is by no means corruption. But it is the thing most easily grafted onto corruption. Drugs can also function as “medicine.” In the same way, lobbying can “function.” But drugs, like corruption, make things prone to decay. The beginning of lobbying was very good. Cocaine, too, was very good at the beginning. The fact that a means can perform a legitimate function does not mean that the possibility of its abuse and its harmful consequences disappear. Lobbying is, in particular, centered on the asymmetry by which groups with money and organizational power can gain access to policymakers. So what is the problem? Decisions that are “legal” but morally bad have been produced. Through legal lobbying, a minority group can exert excessive influence over policymaking and cause harm to the majority.

Policymaking does not reflect the interests of various citizens fairly at all.

Could someone recommend a well-organized book on this kind of direction? I'm curious how a small game like this pulls off this kind of direction.

I only use Jev at the tool-calling layer to keep tool costs low, but I don't really see what the big advantage is.

The problem with open source like this is that it’s too difficult to work on, and if you start studying just to be able to work on it, it’s hard to get noticed. Most core open-source projects start with optimization and are extremely difficult. But would people with that level of skill really dislike being noticed?

I’ve only ever used Windows, so I think Windows is better.

It reminds me of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The mice asked for the answer to everything in the universe, and it produced the answer:

“42.”

But no one could understand what the answer even meant. So they designed a computer to build the question itself again, and that was Earth. Then the story begins with Earth being destroyed because of a cosmic highway problem (I won’t write more since that would be a spoiler). In the opening background of this work, I found it interesting that after calculating for 7.5 million years, they didn’t even know what they had originally been asking. The story now feels similar to that story from back then.

If we follow this video, the real constraints essentially mean POSIX and ABI. This implies that the contract a programmer must understand is distributed across multiple layers—not just the language specification, but effectively the operating system and ABI as well. Ultimately, this leads to the conclusion that even if the language itself is fundamentally free, constraints are inherently necessary at its lower layers. If we were to bloat the compiler—that is, if we restricted freedom like Rust does with its borrow checker—then the freedom available to the programmer would vanish. If that happens, people might grow weary of a language that is supposed to be free. In the end, any single layer inherently restricts freedom. In other words, I feel there is a need to transfer the complexity that a programmer must manage over to a mechanical management system, but which layer would be best for that?

Currently, based on experience, this level of complexity is categorized into the language layer, and that level of complexity into the operating system layer. But in the future, won't there be some sort of complexity theorem that determines which layer minimizes complexity the most, and won't systems be completely rewritten based on that?

Is a proof that cannot be understood worthless? How would this be framed philosophically?

In fact, the academic system is a kind of worldview created by humans. And as it is shared and the community grows, the problem will gradually become more complex. Because when a discipline develops sufficiently, just as in a mine where rich veins are easy to extract early on but become very hard to extract once much has been dug out... in that sense, as things gradually become more complex, once a certain threshold is reached, won't scholarship surpass the limits of human understanding? Of course, scholarship is entirely for humans, but at some point the system itself may face its limits, and then wouldn't it again reduce the existing normalized minimum within that discipline and establish a new normalization of a new logical system?

In my view, perhaps for very complex work like today, AI will do it, and then there will be work that normalizes and further simplifies the results of that AI. Then, coming back to the human fold, if humans create the initial skeleton, the LLM will learn that again and it will become complex work again, and won't this create a continuing cycle?

I think verification and understanding can be separated. If the proof targets a correctly formalized proposition and passes a reliable proof checker, isn't it valuable? We have obtained knowledge justified as true, but there is simply no new theory that understands that knowledge. As was the case with the Four Color Theorem...

I am always curious what shape the newly compressed new discipline will take. At that time, I hope even people like me, who are intellectually behind, will be able to learn that discipline.

What I’m curious about is, then, how should this problem be handled? Actually, there’s a point I’m somewhat curious about. For projects with a bus factor of 1 or very low, and in a supply chain like this, there’s a somewhat difficult point regarding what kind of system should be established so that the core developers maintaining that kind of core receive appropriate compensation.

That’s true, after all. Technically very new or challenging technologies get the spotlight from many people, but these technologies are very important yet are a kind of engine technology that is less visible... I’m curious how this should be identified or selected.

That said, if you set up a committee, the committee could also become an inner circle based on their personal connections.

All these anti-patterns are about me, but I have no intention of changing...

I felt a sense of kinship because your thoughts are so similar to mine. These days on HN, people say AI coding is so bad, but it has its advantages too. If you look at just the code blocks, it really writes better than most people (of course, global consistency is weaker). Hearing your story, I was surprised that what drew me to your comment was how similar our thinking is.

I also think ‘domain knowledge’ is incredibly important. Whether you write code or not matters, and coding as a hobby is good, but now every company forces you to write code with AI, so you can’t avoid using it, and I find myself thinking about how to maintain my own instincts.

I feel good seeing thoughts similar to mine. I upvoted you, and have a great day.

I agree with your thinking as well. Then, could you possibly critique my thoughts too? It seems like you and I think similarly, and I’m curious whether my logic is consistent.

[1]https://www.makonea.com/en-US/casual/the-hardest-part-of-usi...

Thank you always for your consideration and for showing me a broader world. I know I can be a nuisance, but I’d appreciate it if you could think of me as a younger, more foolish junior programmer.

There are already many claims in Chinese statistics that it is running a deficit.

I recently read reports about Korean banks that were not affected by the latest hacking incident.. They restrict work access to designated tablets only, and they don’t give loan recruiters access to the internal network or even a separate work system. When a recruiter hands a case over to a branch, the rest of the process is handled internally.

Looking at this, it seems that rather than making things easier because of AI, it actually requires more bureaucratic handling. The surface that made people comfortable is, paradoxically, becoming AI’s attack surface.

AI coding, at the level of ordinary scripts, generally doesn’t require much special skill. Things like Excel automation, for example. But building an entire program does require a certain kind of skill.

thanks!

thanks!

Sometimes I think it would be nice if there were biographies that laid out when and how Nobel laureates made their discoveries. Then wouldn't it be possible to pattern how people discover certain phenomena?