Jenk
Jenk on Hacker News
I'm wondering why these aren't extensions rather than baked in. Extensions would be consistent with the historical development mantra of pi.
Are you referring to GitHub Copilot? I believe this thread is referring to Windows Copilot, such as the AI feature embedded into every Office progam, which is not the same experience.
Just for anecdata: I'm using simplelogin to alias my emails and I can see there is a 20ish minute window between when Simplelogin receives an email, to when it finally shows up in my Proton inbox. Normally it's an inconsequential delay.
Not sure if that indicates how much of a backlog of emails Proton has because of this outage, or if the DR infra is just that much slower?
The point though, is that they package 3rd party applications and libraries.
If they ban AI, they won't stop packaging apps and libraries from parties that do use AI. They wouldn't even know who does or doesn't.
I have very little in my agents.md file wrt style, except for:
> Caveats belong inline, no "one thing to note" or "it's worth mentioning" footer. If it is worth raising or calling out, do so where it is most relevant and not as a foot note.
Opus 5 has a god awful habit of always doing a Columbo on every single response, and it is such a jarring read that it amps my cognitive burden having to back-read everything.
Well, the Ubuntu logo has suddenly clicked. How did I not see it before?!
The (many) interior designers we consulted before renovating our house used A/VR to show us what those changes could look like. The AR experience was the most surreal and useful, though.
"That guy has lots of money so he must be successful, clever, and probably correct, so I'm going to support them" is still an aspiration - and you probably should realise that there are people in dollar stores that think "One day, that could be me."
> I do not understand why anyone else would go along with this.
Aspirations.
$165k won't get you far on salaried engineers. There's every chance that 1 engineer, assuming Anthropic employs them, is on $500k or more. Assuming average of $336k in that pool of 50 engineers, then for 11 days for 50 engineers you've spent $710k[0].
Salary info: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/anthropic/salaries/software...
[0]The maths I used (posting because I'm tired and prone to mistakes):
$336,000 / 260 (working days of the year) = ~$1,292.
$1,292 * 11 * 50 = ~$710,769
> - Not sure what they're called, but I've seen a lot of fully automated outdoor "locker stations" for packet deliveries
Drop boxes!
I was part of a team prototyping these some 20 years ago. I highly doubt we were the only team doing so, but we were certainly unaware of any commercially available/deployed stations at the time. I was writing the software, in particular the orchestration of the locks and event bus for the transmissions.
Lots of fun from trying to fathom how undocumented solenoids operated, to trips to various countries for remote and environmental testing, and destructive tests simulating someone driving a truck into an installation (i.e., by deliberately driving a truck into one!)
The nerdiest moment was taking a mainboard model that we were getting intermittent faults with and recreating the exact environmental conditions to recreate the problem. This involved incubating the mainboard in a sealed environment chamber to control temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure. The fault was bit-flipping because electrons were jumping rails when the microchip(s) were cold and damp.
If the title simply said "AI is out-performing humans at CTF" then none of this confusion exists. Nothing is "broken," we don't need to be superfluous with "frontier," and the point is still there.
I've found the first, and most important, step for any team or organisation to eliminate concerns with NFRs, "tech debt", and whatever else it may be called, is to stop giving it a name.
I'm being completely serious. By giving it some kind of distinct name, you are giving license to it being ring-fenced and de-prioritised by someone who doesn't (but, arguably, probably should) know better.
Quality matters. It hits your P&L very quickly and very hard if you don't maintain it. So it is as important as any other factor.
Ditto, launchpad.net is also extremely flaky.
I do trunk based dev. My colleagues prefer git. I still prefer to use jj.
It doesn't need you to think that way at all.
`jj new` simply means "create a new commit [ontop of <location>]" - you don't have to describe it immediately. I never do.
I know that the intention was to do that, and I tried forcing the habit, but I too found it counter-productive to invariably end up re-writing the description.
No that is correct when in colocate mode (which is the default mode). Simply removing the .jj folder will "de-jj" the repo entirely, but will leave you in a headless state. Simple to fix with a `git switch` though.
If you are _not_ in colocate mode, the .git folder is located _inside_ the .jj folder. So worth checking!
This is literally jj's schtick and reason for existing, so I wouldn't be surprised if you decide it is not the tool for you.
You don't replace. jj is backed by git anyway.
Tbf you wouldn't use/switch to jj for (because of) those kind of commands, and are quite the outlier in the grand list of reasons to use jj. However the option to use the revset language in that manner is a high-ranking reason to use jj in my opinion.
The most frequent "complex" command I use is to find commits in my name that are unsigned, and then sign them (this is owing to my workflow with agents that commit on my behalf but I'm not going to give agents my private key!)
jj log -r 'mine() & ~signed()'
# or if yolo mode...
jj sign -r 'mine() & ~signed()'
I hadn't even spared a moment to consider the git equivalent but I would humbly expect it to be quite obtuse.
Or a colon:
Windows Subsystem for: Linux
I switched to Jaq[0] a while back for the 'correctness' sake rather than performance. But Jaq also claims to be more performant than jq.
[0]: https://github.com/01mf02/jaq
Yes but it is easy to abuse/misuse IME, in that I think it requires one to maintain your own sense of discipline for the principle separation rather than the library/framework guide you into it. The threshold between UI and state management is comically easy to confuse.
Not dismissing it, mind, that inherent guidance is not something that is easy to achieve and I much prefer working with the likes of React than without.
Might be naive, but this has always been a concern of the view-model for me. Every GUI change results in a VM change via event/command. The VM becomes gospel for UI state which means reducers are much simpler, and my actual model doesn't care if it is indeed a button, expando, radio button or whatever else.
The humans operating the LLM are accountable.
> Except your team is full of occasionally insane "people" who hallucinate, lie, and cover things up.
Wait.. are we talking about LLMs or humans here?
I stand corrected. It makes sense that it is a chroot/rootfs rather than fully independent VMs.
re: side-by-side running, I always get socket and/port port problems when doing that. Without having looked into it at all I figure it is NAT collisions.