OutOfHere
OutOfHere on Hacker News
Given now bad things are, for those who don't eat too much meat, if you don't correctly supplement every single essential nutrient, and even many conditionally essential ones, you could be in a sea of trouble. Even then they won't get you sufficient phytonutrients. To make things worse, food is packaged in harmful plastics, and contains toxic pesticides, also PFAS containing pesticides.
At this point you're indistinguishable from a troll. You are unable to elucidate any alternative opinion, and are running in circles without any attempt at a rational progression. I do not engage with trolls. They will fade from history.
It is problematic that the ingredient label doesn't list which types of HFCS are used in the product. It could be HFCS-90 for all I know. The manufacturer could also keep shifting the formula. 90% fructose would be disastrous to one's health.
In fact a 2014 study found 60% fructose, not 55% as is expected with HFCS-55. This suggests a blending of HFCS-55 and HFCS-90 in a ratio that yields 60% fructose. This thuggery by hiding it from the label is bad for health. As a consumer, I am within reason to make the pessimistic assumption of HFCS being up to 90% fructose via HFCS-90, which for all practical intents and purposes is fructose. In any event, your claim of the product containing up to merely 55% fructose is falsified.
Fructose content in popular beverages made with and without high-fructose corn syrup (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2014.04.003.
It is not a personal attack. It is a simple observation. You have presented no real counterargument. You have not presented an alternate future. Burying one's head in the sand is sometimes just that.
LLMs are what we use. It is you who started debating their future, not me:
> You speak as if the future of this tech is settled fact, but it isn't. All anyone has is speculation.
In retrospect, you don't seem to have any clear argument whatsoever, just handwaving, posturing, followed by denying rather than strengthing your own point. Selfishness remains the succinct explanation.
In fairness, some of those older styles could alienate a reader, whereas mid-20th century style is practically like our own. To emphasize, this is narrowly about applying the style from an era, not the English from an era.
> Your body can't tell the difference.
That's not metabolically true. Fructose by definition doesn't have glucose which is present in sucrose. Metabolically, your body absolutely reacts differently.
A core issue is that isolated fructose and its derivatives, e.g. HFCS, don't sufficiently trigger satiety. In contrast, regular sugar and glucose trigger satiety. This has been known for over a decade:
- Dissociable Behavioral, Physiological and Neural Effects of Acute Glucose and Fructose Ingestion: A Pilot Study (2015) (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130280)
- Attenuated hypothalamic response to fructose via a dedicated gut-brain pathway (2026) (DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2026.05.013)
I don't think you realize the prompt actually works. The word "style" does it. I guess you like clickbait too much.
Neither one of the two databases you mentioned are open source. There is too much talk and nothing to see here.
Why is it hard? Ask it to write professionally in mid-twentieth century style English, and without resorting to the clickbait style of writing.
In any event, other LLMs may not automatically have the problem, and don't even require such a prompt. This is a Claude problem.
Are you imagining an alternate reality where LLMs go away from usage? Because that doesn't make any sense. Sure, other forms of AI will come to exist, but LLMs are not going away. Moreover, progress in AI is very much expected for the time being. The personality defect in the aforesaid is real. The denial of reality is par for the course.
Huh. Your comment makes no sense, since types are ignored at runtime. Your performance benchmarks seems all noise. If it's about LLM speed, that's an atrocious thing to even compare. Writing code carelessly is fast, but it's also fast at adding bugs.
Types improve clarity to humans. Types also prevent future bugs by disallowing incompatible modifications. If you're not religiously writing types in function signatures, you're not developing professional software, just throwaway janky unprofessional scripts. I suggest looking at the OpenAI package to see just how well typed it is.
If I was writing a DBMS today, I'd consider Zig, never C/C++, as the latter continue to remain fraught with memory-safety footguns. So no, I don't concur with what's your center of gravity.
> there are a lot of people who have a very different opinion
In addition to being selfish to the point of self-detriment, most such people also have an overinflated ego. (Before the mods get their knickers in a twist, I am not referring to any person in particular.) They put themselves over their community, country, and the world, so much so that they themselves will lose out in the long run.
There may exist one in a billion people who may objectively carry the opinion, but even they won't be doing anyone justice if they come in the way of the progress of AI which will ultimately overtake them too.
> 10g of sugar is 10g of sugar, regardless if it came from a strawberry, fruit juices, or HFCS.
From a biological pov, that is wrong on so many levels. It is why labels now have Added Sugars listed separately. Sugars as whole fruit aren't unhealthy in moderation, whereas HFCS is one if the unhealthiest added sugars. There is no way to equate them except in pure chemistry with no relation to biology.
I didn't mean to post a personal attack against the author. It was targeted at others, not the author. This is a limitation of the English language since the particular users weren't qualified. In any event, I have now edited it to remove the sentence. I will be more careful.
Whether you use 3.15 or not, if your project already passes a modern type checker, one thing that you can do easily using AI is to significantly tighten (narrow) the type annotations of your functions. Run this two or three times until the annotations are sufficiently but not excessively narrowed. This prevents a whole lot of bugs, and increases clarity of the code for AI.
Some should now be fixed as the documentation pages get updated to point to 3.15.
Rust has been out since 2010. It already was rated "most-loved" by 2016. Systems programmers had adopted it by 2018.
I wonder if he would have gotten away with it if only he had stayed under well the radar.
Everything is wrong with this pipeline for the reason you noted. It is unacceptable.
We need to separate competitive gTLDs from those whose registration is controlled uncompetitively. Very few, e.g. .xyz, are competitive.
I don't buy your claim of "high-paying". If you don't pay as per US resident and urban standards, good domestic candidates obviously won't bother applying.
Of course the dinosaurs chose to bury their heads in the sand, and asked that everyone else does too. They've no place in the new world. They could've instead come up with good feedback to improve the paper quality, but they didn't.
Some authors in the math community already use AI to write papers.
I didn't see a benchmark for combined JIT with FT.