michaelmior

> unless you can somehow stuff an entire LLM in there.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time ;)

https://fuglede.github.io/llama.ttf/

FWIW, almost this exact syntax for imports (without the `npm:` prefix) is supported for standalone scripts with Bun.

I recently discovered Charles Soule who started in comic books and ventured into novels. I read The Oracle Year recently and now I'm reading The Endless Vessel.

I remember using a Maemo device circa 2009. I recall overall really liking the OS.

I personally really enjoyed Watch Dogs: Legion. It wasn't so much that each individual was very unique. Moreso the concept of being able to become anyone.

> you lose all the users who don't want to leave the walled garden, even though they can.

I think it's moreso you lose all the users who don't realize anything outside the walled garden even exists.

> an advantage of agents in huge codebases is that they can find where to make the change and draft it, which wouldn't work with this system.

I think you could go meta here and ask the agent in English to modify your pseudocode for larger changes.

While excessive screen time can certainly be a problem and the specific content matters there is nothing inherently wrong with a small amount of age-appropriate YouTube content consumption.

The announcement didn't read as AI-generated to me at all. Of course this is far from foolproof, but ZeroGPT says 0% AI.

I'm curious what you think makes this better than the dozens of sites out there that have the same goal?

Some changes certainly can be. If the model produces the exact same output for a fixed seed across a variety of inputs after a code change, I think it's reasonable to expect that the change is correct. There are also mathematical transformations that can be applied in some cases that are provably correct. (Not suggesting there's necessarily anything of this nature that will lead to 1,000x improvement though.)

This depends on what your workflow is. There are use cases for tokenization that don't always involve immediately feeding the text into a model.

Cloudflare did not develop QuePaxa, although I'm sure they did a lot of work to operationalize it. The original protocol is from a SOSP 2023 paper.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3600006.3613150

Worth noting if it wasn't obvious from the article that Cloudflare did not develop QuePaxa. It's from an SOSP paper back in 2023[0]. The article is discussing what is the first known large-scale public deployment of the protocol.

[0] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3600006.3613150

I don't see a problem with the tool either really, it's just a pet peeve of mine to call what it produces an ER diagram when it's really a diagram of the relational model defined by the SQL.

I think most successful ORMs have an additional layer of semantics beyond what can be directly expressed in SQL. For example, Active Record has multiple types of associations (belongs_to, has_one, has_many, etc.) that I would argue align more closely to the ER model than the relational model. Of course you can come up with a set of conventions to go from ER to relational when everything is fed through the ORM, but you are losing some semantic information in the process. (That is, if you just look at the SQL table definitions, you don't have the same information about relationships).

Inheritance is one case. In an ER diagram, you may have Employee and Client entities which both inherit from a Person entity. You could choose to have these represented as a single table (with nullable fields where not relevant). They could be three completely separate tables with common fields duplicated across the tables. Or there could be three tables where one table has the common fields from Person with Employee and Client having foreign keys to this table along with whatever unique fields they have.

Aside from what else is mentioned in the sibling comment, inheritance is another big one. Inheritance is not explicit in SQL and in fact, when going from ER to SQL, there are multiple choices you can make about how to materialize the inheritance hierarchy.

Another is that in ER diagrams, relationships themselves can have attributes. Personally I think it tends to make more sense to convert relationships to entities in this case most of the time, but it can be useful.

Finally, relationships in ER diagrams can be N-ary and connect more than two entities while foreign keys in SQL always reference one other table. Of course you can have multiple foreign keys on a table to represent this, but not without some loss of semantics.

The tool looks very cool! But IMO you can't get an ER diagram from SQL since entities are fundamentally different from tables. They are certainly very similar, but SQL alone doesn't give you enough information to create an ER diagram.

That's not to say that the tool is useless or that diagrams of this sort are unhelpful. I'll admit I'm being pedantic and others will probably disagree.

MacOS, Ghostty, Neovim, Pi (with a fair bit of customization to each). I'm relatively new to Pi after using Codex pretty heavily, but it's nice to be able to customize things to how I want.

I think that's a fair take. I think we definitely still need specs that describe the desired behavior as an artifact. But documentation describing the implementation definitely feels less important.

Humans also tend to forget to update documentation and the same confusion happens. I don't think it's really a new problem.

That depends on what the software is. If you want to run a service that bonds to a privileged port for example, you need sudo.

I don't think it's that simple, but I do think a lot of the problems mentioned are not inherent to the use of AI.

We have some very heavy users of Codex in my org and we're very happy with the quality (politics aside).

The problem in most of those cases is not specifically AI. Many of the issues you cited are related to Anthropic specifically and many could have been avoided with better testing.

I'm not saying our experience is unimportant. I'm talking about how we communicate what colors are. I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems like the way we communicate a shared understanding of what colors are is based on observing things that are the same color. I just don't think we have a way of communicating our subjective view of what a color looks like without reference to some other color.

The scenario you're describing seems like more of a language thing than a perception thing. We generally learn names of colors by references to common objects. I would argue that if people agree something is "Red, like a strawberry, tomato, or apple" then it doesn't really matter what you're seeing, that color is red.

> no reason why future devices couldn't bundle 256GB of mem by default

Cost is a pretty big reason.