onion2k

The ground shifts under software. OSs change, dependencies get updates, engines change, compilers are improved occasionally in ways that aren't backwardly compatible. If the maintainer isn't at least checking it's not broken, and updating a changelog to say that it's still working, then you can't safely assume it's fine. "Not updated for years" is shorthand for "It could be broken, but I don't want to be the person who goes through the effort of checking."

If you want people to run your code against a set of pinned dependencies from the last time it was updated then that's one thing, but if you people to run it with an up-to-date set of dependencies on a new OS and on the latest compiler or runtime, then you can't just say it's 'done', because things can change outside of your code that means it won't work any more.

That sounds more like a gun in Cyberpunk 2077 than a coffee machine.

Claude for Teachers

Claude for Government

Claude for Financial Advisors

Claude for Clowns

Claude for OpenAI Employees

Claude for People Called Geoff Who Were Born In June

It's a long list.

It needs to be verified. That's all. That could be by a human, but it could be by AI. The point is that any content that's written by AI might be wrong, so if you're not checking it you can't trust it. AI is pretty good at checking it's own work.

I imagine with a fan wiki (or company docs in my experience) no one bothers to put the effort in. That's probably because the rewards are for writing the content, and there's absolutely no reward for checking it's correct.

'Enslaving' RAM so we can get the most work from it as we can isn't quite the same.

There are still reasons for people to have a lot locally, but it shouldn't be the default.

There's a meme for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbreaking:_The_Worst_Perso...

Because the question is "Which is better for local inference out of the M6 or the M5 Max?"

If an M6 Pro/Max was an option that would change the question.

Keeping an unnecessary dependency for legacy reasons is never a good move. Be bold and delete things. Your software will be better for it.

That seems like a less interesting metric than the percentage of successful founders who go it alone. If there are just more startups because founding something alone is much easier, but you're no more likely to succeed as a solo founder, then all that's changed is the number of failing startups. That's not a great ad for starting something without a someone to share the burden.

FWIW in my experience with startups it's the relationship between founders that keeps the product on track and heading in the right direction. Founders keep each other honest (mostly) about whether something is worth building. When someone is going solo they build what they want, which goes brilliantly if they have taste and experience of their market, and horribly when they don't. And it's much more common to see the latter.

The only judgement I make is people who have children and have no regard for the environment. I think those people are risking their children's long term welfare. That's a dick move. If you have kids you have a moral obligation to try to make sure the planet they live on in adulthood isn't fucked.

The question is each of us needs to answer around having kids is firstly about whether or not you want to raise them in the world we live in, and secondly about whether you want (or care) that your children live in a world where the climate is broken, and having to deal with the resource issues, heat, wars over liveable land, etc. Heck, I'm sure plenty of people on HN are under 30 - there's every chance that they'll be around to see these problems first hand.

People who do want to have children are arguably very fortunate that there are lots of people who don't. The children who are born with have to deal with less contention for resources. That said though, they're still in for a pretty bad time by all accounts. Even if technology magically fixes everything, you still have to wonder if your kids will be in the part of society that can afford it.

That's not what I said. People are choosing not to have children for lots of reasons. One of the benefits is that they end up having much less impact on the climate; that's not saying it's the reason they're doing it.

On the contrary in fact, I think a lot of people have decided to do something that will have a tremendously positive impact on the climate in the future: they've chosen not to have children. There will be downsides to that decision, but as far as climate goes it's by far the most impactful thing anyone can do.

The verification is what we always wanted but never had time for. For 30 years I wrote side project games without extensive testing or a fuzzer or anything because I wanted to spend my time writing the game. Now I can do that and still have the testing I always knew I should be building.

The goal is to get to a point where I can say with a good level of confidence that a change didn't break anything. It might be the wrong change, and it might be crap code, but I can ship it without anything blowing up. I've been using it for a while across a few game projects and so far it's worked quite well.

This guy thought anyone looking at the back of a TV would see some toilet paper and just think "Yeah, that's totally normal, I'll leave that there."?

Surely Spycraft 101 says "Make your device look like something that should be there."

I'm not particularly surprised that this guy was caught.

The evidence for man-made climate change is quite compelling, and taking personal responsibility for your own impact on it isn't hard. I don't really see doing my washing at 6am as 'social and technological regression'. Quite the opposite actually - my washing machine has bluetooth and an app. I can tell it when to start.

The fact there isn't global pressure on corporations to be similarly responsible means my act of selflessness is ultimately a futile waste of time, but that's your kids and grandkids problem. I've chosen not to have kids, so I don't really care. I would suggest that choosing to have a family but not choosing to protect the environment as much as you can is an act of incredible selfishness towards your own children. They're the ones who'll have to live in a world with problems like water and food shortages. There is every chance that your grandchildren will die in a war over resources, and your view that tech is awesome will be little comfort to them.