adlpz

Out now!

https://hub.docker.com/_/php/tags

EDIT: 25min later, nope.

I have zero internal info, just guessing, but there's a PR from 5min ago asking to add someone as a reviewer for PHP images:

https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/22544

Maybe the guy that has to click OK is asleep?

Thanks for this comment. It's an angle worth remembering.

A machine is not turing complete, but by running it recursively on its own output, turing completeness emerges.

Who knows at what stage of intricacy consciousness emerges?

Arguably, either it does at some point, or it never does and we requiere the supernatural soul.

So, if it does, we can't disregard the possibility that we've reached it already.

You sound fun...

This is HN. The trip is the destination, bla bla.

Presumably because you've read the first sentence, Telegram Serverless lets you run backend code for your bot and Mini App directly on Telegram's infrastructure, and were interested by the service/proposition enough to keep reading and then noticing it's LLM slop. :)

Sounds like it's free, so, why the hate? May as well have zero docs. I don't think they're trying to convince you of anything.

Wealth concentration beyond a point which would have resulted in widespread revolution 150 years ago, but that is now being tolerated because we've grown accustomed to a level of comfort we don't want to risk losing.

v0 / Claude Design does this these days. As in, I may be wrong here, but this aesthetic is a good clue that the site was designed by AI. These models seem to love this brutalist high contrast look.

probably at the same stage where a bunch of peptides activating some receptors and triggering the pumping of electrolytes in an out of lipid walls does, i guess

We've never been there.

With AI and robotics there may be the slim chance we get closer to that.

But we won't. Not because AI, but because humans, of course.

Your comment is nonsensical. Have you ever used any LLM?

Ask the LLM to... I don't know, to explain to you the chemistry of aluminium oxides.

Do you really think the average human will even get remotely close to the knowledge an LLM will return to such a simple question?

Ask an LLM to amend a commit. Ask it to initialize a rails project. Have it look at a piece of C code and figure out if there are any off-by-one errors.

Then try the same to a few random people on the street.

If you think the knowledge stored in the LLM weights for any of these questions is that of the average person I don't even know what to say. You must live in some secluded community of savant polymaths.

> And LLMs slurped some of those together with the output of thousands of people who’d do the task worse

Theoretically fixable, then.

> But it can’t. Not definitively and consistently

Again, it can't, yet, but with better training data I don't see a fundamental impossibility here. The comparison with any magic wand is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

> If you don’t think to do regular things, you won’t be able to think to do advanced things

Humans already don't think for a myriad of critical jobs. Once expertise is achieved on a particular task, it becomes mostly mechanical.

-

Again, I agree with the original comment I was answering to in essence. I do think AI will make us dumber overall, and I sort of wish it was never invented.

But it was. And, being realistic, I will try to extract as much positive value from it as possible instead of discounting it wholly.

I felt literal pain. Not kidding.

There's something to investigate here.

Made me notice I'm actually exposed to very similar crap on other places. Scary.

Agreed, conceptually.

BUT. For 99% of tasks I'm totally certain there's people out there that are orders of magnitude better at them than me.

If the AI can regurgitate their thinking, my output is better.

Humans may need to think to advance the state of the art.

Humans may not need to think to just... do stuff.

Thanks for the answer! I've hit those tipping points myself in exactly the same scenarios (OCR and AI). For me, ends up being hacky or just decoupled (independent job runners). Makes sense to have a proper monolith backend for these.

Congrats on the launch again!

Cool project! Will surely copy ideas from it :)

A general question for the room: where's the tipping point where you need a "proper" backend, in a different language, with all the inconveniences of possible type safety issues and impedance mismatches?

Because I feel like for 90% of small-medium projects it's just good enough with all the backend stuff within the same Next.js process as the front-end. I just do "separation of concerns"-ish with the code organization and funnel all communication with something structured and type safe like tRPC.

Feels separate enough but very pleasant to work anyway.

Am I doing it wrong?

A question for the heavy Emacs users:

What's your take on opinionated distros like Doom Emacs or Spacemacs?

I've been doing my daily journaling and task management on Emacs for while now, using Doom Emacs. Rationale was that it'd be mostly pre-configured to a sane standard and that, for actual text editing, I'm a long time vim enjoyer, so evil mode is great there.

However I always feel that when I go beyond the safe borders of the preconfigured, leader-key-accessible realm, I'm quite lost. I don't have good intuitions on how to interact with more raw parts of the system.

And I do want to venture further, so I'm feeling I need to get re-started with one of the recommended tutorials/books.

Should I start fresh Emacs install instead?

PS: I've coded in a bunch of lisps in the past and I have already done a bit of customization on top of Doom, so I sort of know my way around, but I'm just not comfortable I guess.

Where's the fun in that? :D

Well this goes to show that, as some other commenter said, the gamer community (whatever that is) is indeed very fragmented.

I routinely re-play games like Diablo 2 or BG1/2 and I couldn't care less about graphics, voice acting or motion capture.

AFAIK, the electrolyte.

I think it's become a running theme: senior devs who have been coding for a while now are able to extract value from these tools because, even if you don't know Rust, you know how to code.

BS code smells the same in any language.

Beginner devs don't even know what smelling means.

I thought this was going to be yet another post about how AI is ruining Junior devs so we'll have a Senior replacement crysis in a few years.

It sort of is, indirectly, and I agree with pretty much everything.

But the bit about sycophancy was particularly enlightening. I actually thought "plain" ChatGPT-like interfaces could be good for learning. But the Youtube ROAS example is really powerful. If the student can skew the teacher's conclusions so much just by the way they phrase their questions/answers, we're going to mislead new programmers en masse.

I'm not even sure that the extensive prompting they say they use for their "Boots" is good enough.

I guess in the age of AI you still need someone to repeatedly reject your pull requests until you learn. And AI won't be that someone, at least for now.

As I answered somewhere else, the over-the-top freeloader term I think is justified because OP clearly expects not only to benefit from the work already available, freely, but also to be entitled, for free, to any work and improvement that comes in the future.

This is nonsensical. Someone did something for free. Fantastic. They used it, successfully, for a production system that enables scheduling for their job.

Nobody took that away from them. They didn't force them to rebuild their tool.

The code is even there, in the git history, available for them.

If OP doesn't like what the devs decided to do with the project, just move on or fork and pay someone to help you fix any outstanding bugs or missing features.

Yeah, I agree, it's over the top. I'm just matching the over-the-top language of the original post, which pretty much calls the Datastar devs "disgraceful" and to "f them".

I did read the post. I know OP not a programmer. And that makes it even worse: OP has the audacity of saying they "make no money from the project" while it being a scheduling tool for their presumably plenty money-making clinic.

It would in fact be less shocking if they were a programmer doing a side project for fun.

This piece is not a rational, well tempered article. Is a rant by someone who just took something that was free and is now outraged and saying fuck you to those who made their project possible in the first place, not even understanding how licenses work or even being aware that the code they relied on is still there, on github, fully intact, and available for them.

This sort of people not only want to get it for free. They want their code to be maintained and improved for free in perpetuity.

They deserve to be called freeloaders.

I just come from writing a comment on the other Datastar post on the home page, literally saying that I don't see the point of it and that I don't like it.

But I'm now here to defend Datastar.

It's their code, which, up to now, they built and literally given away totally for free, under a MIT license. Everything (even what "they moved to the Pro tier") should still be free and under the MIT license that it was published under originally.

You just decided to rely and freeload (as, as far as I can tell, you never contributed to the project).

You decided to rely on a random third party that owns the framework. And now you're outraged because they've decided that from now on, future work will be paid.

You know the three magic words:

Just. Fork. It.

I may be just completely out of my depth here, but I look at the cool example on their website, the Open the pod bay doors, HAL bit, and I don't like it, at all.

And reading comments one would think this is some amazing piece of technology. Am I just old and cranky or something?

This feels... very hard to reason about. Disjoint.

You have a front-end with some hard-coded IDs on e.g. <div>s. A trigger on a <button> that black-box calls some endpoint. And then, on the backend, you use the SDK for your choice language to execute some methods like `patchElements()` on e.g. an SSE "framework" which translates your commands to some custom "event" headers and metadata in the open HTTP stream and then some "engine" on the front-end patches, on the fly, the DOM with whatever you sent through the pipe.

This feels to me like something that will very quickly become very hard to reason about globally.

Presentation logic scattered in small functions all over the backend. Plus whatever on-render logic through a classic template you may have, because of course you may want to have an on-load state.

I'm doing React 100% nowadays. I'm happy, I'm end-to-end type safe, I can create the fanciest shiny UIs I can imagine, I don't need an alternative. But if I needed it, if I had to go back to something lighter, I'd just go back to all in SSR with Rails or Laravel and just sprinkle some AlpineJS for the few dynamic widgets.

Anyway, I'm sure people will say that you can definitely make this work and organize your code well enough and surely there are tons of successful projects using Datastar but I just fail to understand why would I bother.

You're giving this government, or one in the future, the tools and access they'll need to opress and discriminate against you, a minority.

Yeah.

Anyone knows about similar resources for, say, the EU? Or it just varies too much by country here?

Very cool concept and PoC of both Spotify and vscode integration to learn from.

It has opened my mind to a bunch of cool things to do now that I know that the /v1/me/player/currently-playing API endpoint exists.

But I'm having enough trouble concentrating as it is, this seems like a terrible idea :D.

Maybe for the more chill vibe codng sessions...

Edit: Also, cool to learn about https://lrclib.net/, will come in handy if the music industry paradigm shifts and we need to yet again sail the high seas.

This is one of those things that are terrible, but not because the tool is terrible in itself, it's just that the world in which the tool operates is terrible, and the tool just a natural conclusion.