This is a good point.
If we don't care about inspecting the output, why don't we just replace the Rust compiler with something that generates assembly from Rust source, and then cross check the output with a few million random Rust programs?
2,574 karma · joined May 25, 2023
If we don't care about inspecting the output, why don't we just replace the Rust compiler with something that generates assembly from Rust source, and then cross check the output with a few million random Rust programs?
What's wrong with the source language that it's better to use a sufficiently smart random code generator for the target language, and then fuzz the hell out of the output of it until it behaves the same as the slow translated code, than to create a sufficiently smart compiler from the source to target languages?
I mean this sounds like if we replaced GCC with a really smart random assembly generator and a fuzzer for the output.
PS: I do also test NetBSD in CI.
I submitted the story, and I'm mentioned in it.
For me, it's about demonstrating my stuff runs everywhere Go does.
In particular, this makes s390x the only bigendian architecture I can test on "actual hardware" (vs. QEMU binfmt emulation).
I basically have one such job, living in a stable but bottom of the table EU economy, and 40% is exactly the ballpark.
People love to rationalize tax evasion like that.
Brands could do that - or an approximation of that by having an higher launch prize for the initial batch - yet they mostly don't.
Maybe the intent here is not keeping difference to themselves, and there's more brand value in not profiting from supply constraints, while being perceived as doing something about mass scalping.
Since most brands don't seem to agree with you, and if you just feel like you should be able to use your extra money to get lucky, you can still try to convince one of the lucky ones. I guess the few who might take it to eBay will charge even more for the privilege.
Not everything needs to be about efficient markets.
The customer probably never noticed if I even did it “correctly” or couldn't be bothered if I didn't, but I remember I was bothered by it: (1) ensuring continuity of programming during the gap when it jumps forward (2) solving the ambiguity when it went backwards.
Because obviously they wanted to think in local time.
That caveat aside: good.
I'd really like to know the prompt, because I did try and, this took me way too long to figure out.
It was submitted by a seasoned user, who probably asked a frontier LLM. It still felt… wrong. I didn't understand it, and I wouldn't merge it without understanding it.
I also suspected it was wrong, in a way that would cause issues in the future.
So I reviewed it 4 different ways: (1) try to understand/improve it; (2) do it with better algorithms; (3) avoid it by fixing the issue upstream; (4) rewrite it from scratch probably just to match my brain.
I expected either (2) or (3) would be the answer. (2) didn't work, rather it's the correct answer but I need to redo the project from scratch to use it; (3) I wanted really bad to work, but didn't.
So I got to a blend of (1) and (4). I'm still not entirely convinced, but now I understand the issue/solution. I obviously think my approach is better.
Still, I still stripped both of comments, and asked my LLM to review.
The LLM came back and said the original one was clearly better. I explained why not, it then answered I was correct.
If I try it with comments, LLMs say the mine is better. Because I found a real issue (one that I pointed at in the original comment thread). But is it saying mine is better because I coerced it to say so?
Monoliths vs micro-services.
I think it was (a good idea), and AI made it easier for sure.
https://go.dev/wiki/MinimumRequirements#:~:text=The%20Go%20t...
Isn't it hard to write this with a straight face?
Rentable scooters/bikes being dumped everywhere by idiots is an issue, but parked in city approved places they're a boon.
They can make transit incredibly more useful for thousands of people in slightly less dense places.
The nearest subway to me is 2km away. It's much nicer to be able to rent a scooter for 5min than having to take it with me for the whole ride, or have it locked to a pole with 100s others.
As for Waymo I dunno if a vehicle the size of a car just driverless is the answer to mobility issues, but anything that reduces the number of moving and parked cars in cities is a win in my book.
It's a somewhat less faithful translation, since I manually ported the VFS (SQLite OS abstraction layer).
OTOH, each SQLite connection is sandboxed (can't access/corrupt Go memory, or other SQLite connections). And it should run everywhere Go runs.
But I assume at least it's based on the free-float market cap?
Who do you mean?
The vast majority of HN commenters are 10%ers and very many are 1%ers.
But there's always someone richer to complain about.
So basically, we're all in our high horses, not reviewing code, scalding the unpaid maintainer for … not reviewing code.
Time for - whoever actually cares - to do better.
In the past few months, I've used agents to brute force and reverse engineer solutions to problems I would never have economically have figured out on my own. I did it by putting agents in loops, connected to hardware and the internet, reading technical documentation, and relentlessly trying.
The code was shit. But it's much better to start with working shit and make it correct than spend weeks frustrated that nothing works.
I get that being a domain expert and instantly knowing the output is shit is important, but even if the output looks great, the code can be shit, and it takes looking at the code and knowing something about it to figure that out.
The solution to shit output is not (always, sometimes it is) just another if statement.
Even in a very well specified OSS effort, where I have some expertise, and I carefully reviewed the AI's output every goddamn step of the way, bugs slip through that the agents confidently tell me can't happen, and when shown proof they… add just another if, instead of really questioning assumptions.
You either know what you're doing, or you don't.
We already had generics when they wrote "we don't anticipate adding generic methods."
Did you?
Still, in this case, half the feature is better than none at all, IMO.