AdieuToLogic
Joined 11 years ago
Karma
3,773
Submissions
1,706
Member since
Jun 16
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 day ago
Comment · 1 day ago
It would be if pos were dereferenced in that state. However, since the postfix decrement operator is used in the inequality test, pos pointing to an undefined location is never used.
Comment · 2 days ago
Why not use the C/C++ idiom of pointer math?
_Bool find_last (size_t count, int *haystack, int needle, size_t *where)
{
for (const int *pos = haystack + count; pos-- != haystack;) {
if (*pos == needle) {
*where = pos - haystack;
return 1;
}
}
return 0;
}Comment · 4 days ago
>> The Hacker News Community (hah) needs to lobby hard to pass a law (what boostrapping!) to require the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Law_Revision_Cou... to maintain the repo as part of their duties, and do it retroactively for the entire history of the US Code.
> I want to see a practical benefit to maintaining this with public funds versus the usual redlines.
The US government works for the people and, as such, changes made to the US Code over time must be traceable, discoverable, and therefore justifiable by or condemnable to those who are responsible for said changes without fear or favor.
That is as practical as it gets.
Comment · 4 days ago
> After the collapse of civilization, as long as you can maintain the computer running ...
One of these situations prohibits the other.
Comment · 8 days ago
> I sadly suspect that if it's a choice between throwing a person or an LLM on an existing large and complex codebase cold ...
You're missing the point. Understanding has nothing to do with code.
"Code" is short for "encode", which is an industry term for "encoding a solution". This implies a solution has been formulated before it is expressed in a programming language.
There is no "codebase" without a person or people who understand what solution to reify in the first place.
> A model can absolutely help create understanding in the person overseeing these changes, provided that person deigns to ask for it.
A model can assist a person to gain understanding, sure, but like you said yourself:
... provided that person deigns to ask for it.
By this statement alone, you have proven my point of:
In order for agentic coding to be a net positive, the
instructions given to the AI offering must be from people
who understand what a system currently does as well as what
functionality a product needs to provide in its future
desired state.Comment · 9 days ago
Agentic coding does not create understanding in the people tasked with altering a product to provide significantly different functionality.
In order for agentic coding to be a net positive, the instructions given to the AI offering must be from people who understand what a system currently does as well as what functionality a product needs to provide in its future desired state.
Agentic coding does not solve these fundamental concerns.
Comment · 10 days ago
> The point is that previously, changing code in a major way might take months of refactoring.
> Now, the kinds of changes that were simply unrealistic before are now entirely realistic. A refactor/migration that would have taken 6 months before, you can now get a working version done in a day, and another few days of QA.
Significantly changing a system implementation is a function of understanding, not time.
Given a starting solution state being A and a desired functionality state of A', the tooling used to codify the A -> A` delta is largely irrelevant. Specifically, in order to successfully deliver major product realignment requires awareness of what exists currently and understanding of what needs to be.
Code is neither stone nor clay.
When making software, remember that it is a snapshot of
your understanding of the problem. It states to all,
including your future-self, your approach, clarity, and
appropriateness of the solution for the problem at hand.
Choose your statements wisely.Comment · 12 days ago
> The problem is, baking something and sharing it with others brings people together ...
Honestly, I don't see how this is a problem.
> Which in the end is kinda the point of it.
Absolutely.
> Like your post says, with programming, it's mostly just a race to what achieves the goal ...
Unless the joy of whatever programming one does is found in the path taken.
> I started learning ARM assembly so I could make a lisp implementation in it. It will be useless, no one will use it, and an AI could bang one out in a few minutes ...
Who cares if anyone uses it or if some other tooling could replicate what you choose to do if, in doing so, you enjoy it.
Much like the "damn good croissants" you make, it doesn't matter what others could make. You make damn good croissants.
Your happiness is yours. Enjoy the path you take to find it.
Comment · 13 days ago
> I still prefer TypeScript since I do a lot of frontend work and prefer to use the same language across the stack.
If you perfer using the same language for both frontend and backend work, yet would like to have one more semantically rich than TypeScript, consider Scala.
For the frontend, ScalaJS[0].
For the backend, Scala[1].
Comment · 20 days ago
Were this a common managerial philosophy, and not an exception, many efforts would have better outcomes.
The funny thing about Servant Leadership[0] is that it demands a leader see themselves as an equal with those whom they lead. Thus requiring acknowledgement that the title a person has does not establish their value, no matter what an org chart proclaims.
Comment · 26 days ago
In these kind of situations, bcwipe[0] is a handy tool to have available.
Comment · 1 month ago
> He quoted something from the Bible ...
It is also possible that the proverb I provided to you is the origin of the oft quoted:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak
and remove all doubt.
Comment · 1 month ago
> So far, your definitions of understanding seem to be whatever vibe you are going for in the statement and I would urge you to think about what a sensible mathematical definition of understanding is so that it can sensibly be assessed on neural networks.
Any reasonable definition of understanding is not dependent upon "whatever vibe you are going for", but instead must include at least an English dictionary definition of "understand" such as:
to grasp the meaning of[0]
to lay hold of with the mind[1]
to lay hold of with the mind the meaning of
>> Understanding is a state of mind
> This is meaningless, it is a circular definition at best.
See above to as to why there is meaning in what I wrote.
>> It exists entirely within the individual and nowhere else
> Then why are we talking about it? What is the point if it is something that can only be defined per individual?
I like to think analyzing fundamental premises, often implicit, explicitly can help to identify fallacious positions.
> We are still not getting anywhere because you have not prescribed criteria to determine whether [an LLM] understands.
My apologies for being opaque. Let me clarify:
LLMs do not "understand". People interpreting LLM output
are the only entities involved which can "understand",
because "understanding" exists strictly within each
person who possesses it.
Comment · 1 month ago
> These days if you're arguing from a position you took even a week ago, you already might be out of sync.
"Might be out of sync" is a unique spelling of "crucified online". :-D
Use it for money laundering and fraud.