ltbarcly3

It's late in life to learn this, but let me be the one to let you in on a little secret: people often say only some of the things they know, they often selectively tell you things while not revealing everything they know.

You are assuming that Carbon is ready for release, deployed to their datacenters, that all scaling and other issues have been worked out, and they are confident in all of the above. Not to mention additional internal constraints like alignment testing or other safety procedures their own policies and guardrails require.

If they are smart, which they clearly have some smart people if they are making the best frontier model, they would account for the above needs in their timeline, and announce the model when they can prove they have it but also before they are ready to release it. This is so they can be at the top of the frontier model lists, boost their brand for both Gemini and Google, get the bump in stock price and investor confidence, steer adoption decisions for people making decisions for what platform they might adopt, etc.

They changed the title, it said github client before I believe.

Microsoft had a small golden age with Azure and Windows 10, and now they are going right back into a Vista-era-like rot. Github is down an awful lot. The reliability is worse than the product I work on for work by like 2 orders of magnitude and we have no ops team. It's a joke.

Windows 11 is awful, lots of the fixes and modernization started in windows 10 has totally stalled, leaving users with 5 different places to change a setting instead of the one old place or one new place. Look how many different UI's there are to adjust sound card / sound settings or display settings. It's a complete mess. Their attempts to jump into the AI game have been a complete joke, despite already having integrated Cortana years ago. Putting Cortana on an llm is such an obvious thing to do, and they already did so much work to make that fully integrated into windows and force it on everyone even though it was trash, and now it's still trash and they don't seem to be able to adapt at all.

Now they can't respond to a complete insecurity in one of their major products in weeks? Why do they even validate certs? Why doesn't revocation work in their app? I don't think they can really be trusted at this point.

You are responding to points I didn't make.

I said that their strategy is self defeating. You are arguing they will do it anyway.

You are arguing that people are delusional about their worth. My point agrees with that, most people are, but there are some people that are actually valuable and companies are very bad at telling the difference.

This is true if you are running a car wash. Even the mid tier employees satisfactorily do the job and customers can be given what they paid for. You are competing on geographic location and ability to do a very easy task repeatedly over and over. You get another chance to sell your product every single day, and you can adjust your prices up and down to find the sweet spot because the sales cycle repeats every day.

It is not true if you are determining the correct feature to add to microsoft's money making products. That requires deep knowledge of users and the industry and the existing product. It requires understanding the industry and users far in advance, the turnaround time for a feature in Windows or Azure is likely 6 months or longer, sometimes years. It requires acumen and an ability to think about customers and the market and sales. Microsoft doesn't have 5000 people who can do this. They probably don't have 1000. These people can go start their own business or consulting firm today. There are lots of people they worked with in the past who know how good they are so they can get another job.

The same is true for engineering. Out of 500 engineers, there are 10-20 that are doing the really important work that you can't just find someone else to do. They know everything about the system and everyone comes to them for advice or to get explanations about how things are put together and why. You can't just find some average engineer and put them in the same desk as these 10-20 and magically things are fine, the mid tier person doesn't have the years of experience nor the potential to fill this role even if they did have the experience.

Because every once-in-a-lifetime AI is invented and finds security flaws in PHP? Seems like you are coming to an overly broad conclusion here. Besides, you have to serve the static HTML somehow, and Apache and Nginx have had plenty of security vulnerabilities.

Because every once-in-a-lifetime AI is invented and finds security flaws in PHP? Seems like you are coming to an overly broad conclusion here.

Now you will get a taste of life in the new world order, one without Pax Bitterballen.

Nobody cares about that and also puts their devices on the internet. Literally nobody.

Nobody needs 2 browsers to support on locked down computers. There's no increase in functionality apart from making between 0 and 1 extremely niche users slightly more happy (but not more capable).

Prediction: Nobody is going to use this. They won't get a single sale.

If you released the worm without intending for it to spread the way it did, it is arguable that it wasn't a crime at the time he did it. The court decided intent wasn't necessary.

Shooting someone is an intentional act. Setting up a booby trap to shoot intruders is automating something that you could have done legally (shoot an intruder) except there is NOT intent. Intent to shoot the intruder is what makes it legal, so long as you meet the other requirements for self defense or the castle doctrine. Shooting someone without intending to shoot someone is negligence or worse. Building a contraption to shoot someone is setting in motion a chain of events specifically to cause a person to be shot with no possibility of satisfying the requirements to justify it.

Here's another scenario: you are cleaning your gun, when unknown to you a home invader is preparing to kick your front door in. Your gun goes off accidentally, shooting the home invader before he gets to your door. Legally it is not self defense, you have negligently shot someone. However, the robber can't sue you as felons do not have a recourse for injuries proximately caused by their own felony (if they are convicted) in California. In other states, the robber may be able to successfully sue even if he is convicted. Laws are weird.

Sooner or later one will hack the government and then they will test this.

I'm sure the author is going through a very hard time, and I want to say up front that it sucks and I hope he lands on his feet.

Looking at his linkedin I see one programming job he had for more than a few months, and a lot that are about 8 months give or take. At one job he started as a programmer after a year and was moved to be a trainer, which he did for 2 more years. That's such a bad sign.

The most likely explanation, to me, of this resume is that there's something more to this story. He gets hired, they give him a few months and then pull the plug. This pattern is there 5 or 6 times, and then one programming job longer than 2 years, which is remote.

I don't know him and I can't say for sure, but this pattern of employment does not fill me with confidence.

Then there are macro issues. He has spent almost his entire career doing Ruby on Rails, which is nearly dead. Jobs for Rails are at 2007 levels as a % of overall tech jobs, and going down year over year for a decade. The tech job market is also saturated with applicants in general.

Finally, and overwhelmingly most importantly, he is only looking for fully remote jobs in Australia.

Overall I would say if he is only willing to consider remote work in Australia, applying to 36 jobs and not getting any is not that surprising. Things are rough out there and he is excluding 99.99% of the job market.

If I were giving him advice, it would be to go get whatever job he can and keep applying to programming jobs if that is where he wants to continue his career. He hasn't been looking very long and his experience in the market he is limiting himself to does not really reflect on him or his abilities. I would give him further advice to clean up his resume, remove several of the short-time jobs that nobody cares about because they are so long ago (but do care about because of the pattern of short term jobs), and combine that job that is split into programmer/trainer stints into one long job with both responsibilities summarized (I programmed and trained people). Finally spend your free time learning a technology that is growing and has relevance, like Rust or Go, and keep applying.

1. While a crime, hacking isn't going to be charged unless the entity being hacked wants there to be charges, as a conviction will heavily depend on participation by that entity.

2. Due to (1), hacking is almost always only charged against people without deep pockets, as why would you demand the FBI go after Anthropic when they will just pay you a stack of cash, tax free, today, to forgive them.

The arguments here around intent are (potentially) irrelevant. Case law is clear that setting up a situation which foreseeably highly likely to produce an outcome (gross negligence) is (more or less and it's not quite this simple and varies by offense) equivalent to intent. In fact, automating something is often treated more harshly under the law than just doing it yourself.

United States v. Morris (1991)

Robert Morris released a self-propagating computer worm that caused widespread disruption. The Second Circuit upheld his conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act even though the government hadn't proven that he intended the resulting damage.

People v. Ceballos (1974)

Ceballos rigged a rifle booby trap to fire if someone opened his garage door. The California Supreme Court reviewed the principle that someone who installs a dangerous mechanical device may be held responsible for its consequences as though they had personally inflicted the injury. Ceballos was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, and the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld his conviction in 1974.

Something notable is that if Ceballos had fired the rifle himself, it is unlikely he could would have been prosecuted (due to self defense and the castle doctrine).

As a prosecutor I would argue that setting AI agents loose without sufficient safeguards is gross negligence and/or willful blindness as they are well known to escape.

In general, in my experience, grep is better than almost anything else you can use. It's very very fast and efficient, very flexible, and does not require any indexing pass, is never out of date, and doesn't require you to guess ahead of time what files you might want to search or how to process search tokens.

"Search your files, repos and agent sessions, locally, and give your agents the best context for the job. One search points them to the few passages that matter, instead of grepping the whole disk."

Grep is already searching for relevant passages with a single tool call. This is clearly LLM written copy. It makes literally no sense.

This reminds me of the dating app advert I keep seeing on tiktok, which says that other dating sites "force you to be the loudest voice on your profile". There's no interpretation that makes sense, it's just the typical LLM gibberish.

Indexing local files makes search faster (in theory, but in practice maybe not for less than a few tens of GB of local files on fast SSD), but not more flexible or requiring less tool calls.

It also will always suffer from being a little behind the on disk state, which is terrible when you are trying to do something like find all the references to something under active development, or when changing branches. Consider you checkout a branch and call this tool, it will just lie to you, telling your LLM there are matches in files that no longer match, getting line numbers wrong, missing matches in other files. Every time you change branches it will go nuts trying to reindex everything. The best case scenario is still probably performance on par with grep but out of date and doing a ton of extra work to index files whether or not you ever need to search them.

Grep can take general regex, which more or less can't be indexed, so there's very few things that are more flexible or produce less tool calls than grep.

Grep is also absurdly fast, if you don't know how fast it is it's faster than you think. Here I use ripgrep to search every piece of code I have checked out, around 11GB of data (more or less) in 0.2s (regular gnu grep takes 4s, mostly because it doesn't exclude .git/ folders and only uses one processor):

  xyz@xx:~% du -sh checkout
  11G checkout
  xyz@xx:~% time rg robotic checkout|wc -l
  19
  rg robotic checkout  1.14s user 1.07s system 1151% cpu 0.192 total
  wc -l  0.00s user 0.00s system 1% cpu 0.192 total

Bro, I dare you to go a whole day without trying to make every single thing in your entire life about politics. Can you do it? It's a low bar, just resist talking about politics about 1 thing per day and you will have completed the challenge. I bet you can't do it. I think if they under cook your boiled egg you will try to draw some line between that and whatever political issue you are being force fed on news sites.

Whether or not to accept LLM generated code to your highly technical open source project has literally nothing to do with DEI policy. Not everyone is an American. Not everyone is reading about politics all day long and desperate to debate it. Touch some grass.

Community code contributions are no longer valuable. That's just the reality. Ideas are valuable, feedback is valuable, un-vetted code is no longer valuable.

Banning AI contributions is just the first step. Contributions are just generally no longer useful when given the idea you can have an llm do the work with 1/50th the effort it would take you before. Even with repeated rounds of feedback and correction it is less work to have an LLM do the work for you than it is to manage an eager contributor attempting the same work, and the result is going to be better and more in line with what you want.

Who said anything about what people deserve?

I'm not making a 'great man' narrative. I'm just applying the Pareto Principle. 80% of research output will be by 20% of researchers. of that 80%, 80% will be by 20% of the 20%. so about 4% of researchers will be responsible for 64% of research output. This turns out to be surprisingly accurate.

It's not a 'great man' narrative, it's just the statement of long verified statistics.

I wonder if you find your position of "there are lots of smart people and success in research is mostly luck" attractive because you would like to believe you could have been a great researcher if you were more lucky?

DeepSeek 4.1 Flash kindof sucks. I used it a bunch and it kindof sucks. I don't know if they are gaming benchmarks or what.

Luna is on par in benchmarks and my personal experience is Luna is better for what I do, and Luna is cheaper.

Comparing Deepseek 4.1 flash to Opus is just ludicrous.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/releases/comparisons?co...

The market very often fails to solve problems until after some kind of huge collapse or failure. Will this problem be around in 200 years? No. Does that mean we should follow your advice and just shut up and not talk about it or try to avoid some kind of major market inefficiency due to short sighted macroeconomic planning? No.

The argument you respond to here is "it is impossible for anyone to be Junior Software Engineer because AI". That is a straw-man.

The actual argument is "there will be no jobs for Junior Engineers, so there will be far fewer, and as a result there will be a huge shortage of Senior Software Engineers".

You are responding to the problem as if it some kind of extinction event, like a rare bird, where if we can find a breeding population we save the day. A few curious people, self training for the love of the game, and as a result we still have a few Software Engineers so everything is fine. It is not like that, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that is the issue. The potential problem is a massive shortage of workers with skills that are currently essential to the functioning of a large fraction of the economy, whom we might still need in the future.

The continued existence of talented enthusiasts does not establish an adequate workforce pipeline. If paid entry level experience contracts, what replaces it, and why should we expect that replacement to operate at sufficient scale?

> So their breakthrough insight had more to do with them being in the right place at the right time in history

No, that's just not correct. There were hundreds of people trying to get there and there were a ton of totally wrong theories with people trying to convince others to take them seriously. Not everyone was engaging in activity that could have ever solved the problem, very few were. Why do you think some scientists seem to have dozens or hundreds of major discoveries, but virtually all scientists have no major discoveries? Just luck? They steal them and don't get caught?

So she must have discovered it before them because their decades later, totally unrelated opinions are bad? I don't understand your point.

I wrote a mean response, but let me just say you are being overwhelmingly condescending starting with your initial response. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know you are talking down to people, but you opened the door when you claim you did not talk down to them despite that being your primary interaction style. I encourage you to use AI to help edit your responses in the future if you are actually not aware of this.

I pasted it into chatgpt with the prompt "analyze the tone of the-grump and check for condescending language and tone. give examples if any." and here is what it says:

Yes, several of the-grump's comments read as condescending. Defending the author from harsh criticism is reasonable, but some of the language used in that defense also talks down to others.

  Were you not also taught to "say something nice or nothing at all?"

This is the clearest example. Invoking a childhood manners lesson positions the other person as someone who needs basic correction.

  You don't see how it's nasty, and then you pile your own nastiness on top.

This is scolding. It treats disagreement as a failure to recognize something obvious, rather than explaining which wording crossed a line.

  Get a life ... instead of spilling your bile on somebody sharing their work.

This is primarily insulting and contemptuous. Hostility is clearer here than condescension specifically.

  And who has an interest in your opinion, pray tell.

This is sarcastic and dismissive. "Pray tell" adds a mocking, superior tone, although the remark also echoes the preceding commenter's dismissal of the-grump's opinion.

  That's what some here don't seem to understand, that there's a way to put things gently...

This presents others as lacking basic interpersonal understanding while placing the speaker in the role of teaching it.

Does it give you some kind of sense of accomplishment to lecture and shame people (who have no interest in your opinion) over their very mild critiques of AI writing style?

If you are going to be 'the-grump' you should find something interesting to be grumpy about, nobody wants to hear your "everyone should be nice all the time except me" horse crap. If it isn't intentional trolling you have next to zero insight into what you are actually doing.

AI is still contributing far more to this discussion than you are.

We should encourage each other to divest from hardware suppliers who are unfriendly to it's users. TP-Link should be publishing specifications to make it as easy as possible to interact with the hardware you purchase, not trying to maximize lock in or force you into a closed ecosystem.

The transaction should be you give them money, they give you hardware and as much information as they reasonably can to use it effectively and safely, repair it later if necessary, etc.

We have become used to having to take whatever we get as though consumers have no power in the market. Stop buying TP-Link hardware until they treat us as paying customers. Encourage other people to stop also. Don't buy hardware from manufacturers who treat you like crap, and don't participate in attempts to 'make it work' by reverse engineering it while they release firmware to break those attempts again and again. Stop funding your own opposition!

Common Lisp isn't even a good programming language. There's nothing in CL that isn't in a ton of other languages now. When it was being designed it was way ahead, but now it's just way behind.

Maybe you could take CL as a foundation, introduce modern features and uniformity to the language, remove some of the insane complexity, tame the unhygienic macros, and come up with a pretty good language. Since about 7392 different flavors of scheme have tried to do this and mostly failed, I think this is very unlikely.

Debating AI consciousness requires a working definition tied to possible evidence and practical consequences. Until we can say what would differ if an AI were conscious, the debate is almost certainly group confusion about words.

“If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle.”

-- William James, Pragmatism (1907), Lecture II, “What Pragmatism Means.”

James’s principle calls for some useful distinction between conscious and non-conscious AI before discussion can meaningfully begin.