That's why I often ask for "Source?" — because sometimes people seem to make up numbers. However, whenever I do this, I receive a large number of downvotes. Maybe it's not common on HN to back up claims with sources.
486 karma · joined April 18, 2024
It isn't [this], it's [that]. Is AI slop, just saying.
I have reviewed your previous comments, and you have consistently written: that's instead of that’s. So what I read is still some LLM output, even though I think there is some kind of human behind the LLM.
You can run the test yourself if you ask GPT-5.2 with reasoning effort high or xhigh, it will always answer correctly. So if the got 0 from 10, they used zero reasoning efforts which easily explain the results.
This doesn’t look like a human comment. It looks like a LLM response.
If you ask GPT 5.2 with high reasoning efforts in the API, you get 10 out of 10: drive.
I asked GPT-5.2 10x times with thinking enabled and it got it right every time.
AI is present everywhere these days. I wouldn’t be surprised if a OpenClaw bot autonomously create a project on GitHub and then submit it to HN, without any human involement.
I'm with you, and I also give a clear: No.
My criticism is about how it is handled. If you introduce a new law and already know there is an immediate workaround that makes the situation even worse than before, then you should close that loophole in the first place. If you can't close the loophole because of strong resistance from lobbyists, then it's obvious this is just about "good intentions on paper" so the EU can say they've done something.
That said, a lot of current agent workloads are I/O bound around external APIs. If 95% of the time is waiting on OpenAI or Anthropic, the scheduling model matters less than people think. The BEAM’s preemption and per process GC shine when you have real contention or CPU heavy work in the same runtime. Many teams quietly push embeddings, parsing, or model hosting to separate services anyway.
Hot code swapping is genuinely interesting in this context. Updating agent logic without dropping in flight sessions is non trivial on most mainstream stacks. In practice though, many startups are comfortable with draining connections behind a load balancer and calling it a day.
So my take is: if you actually need millions of concurrent, stateful, soft real time sessions with strong fault isolation, the BEAM is a very sane default. If you are mostly gluing API calls together for a few thousand users, the runtime differences are less decisive than the surrounding tooling and hiring pool.
> The world being as it is you're likely correct and your cynicism makes sense, but I'd like to think somehow you're wrong.
I don't see any cynicism here, only pure realism. The real question is why EU law tries to create a utopia on paper while ignoring real-world situations. That's what has always frustrated people in the EU about the institution: its lack of decisions that are close to the people and grounded in reality. Yes of course, everyone gets the idea and the good intentions behind it, but good intentions alone are not worth the paper that they are written on.
Many other distributions fragment their knowledge across mailing lists, forum posts, bug trackers, and random blog entries. That worked when search engines were good at surfacing niche technical content. With current search quality, especially the SEO noise layer, the absence of a canonical, well-curated wiki becomes very visible.
Can humans actually do that? Sometimes it appears as if we have made a completely new discovery. However, if you look more closely, you will find that many events and developments led up to this breakthrough, and that it is actually an improvement on something that already existed. We are always building on the shoulders of giants.
I think a low effort post from time to time is okay.