adamsmith

Joined 20 years ago

Karma
2,744
Submissions
328
Member since
Oct 11
Hi there! I started Xobni in 2006, Kite in 2014, among other things.

  * Peronsal homepage: http://adam.net/
  * Email: [email protected]
  * X: http://www.x.com/asmith
  * Github: https://github.com/adamsmith
  * Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamsmith314
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
We have not announced anything formally RE fundraising, but we are well funded and growing the team quickly. All offers include competitive equity.
Comment · 1 year ago
> it's always more worthwhile to debate and work with people who have to consistently match their predictions against reality

Yes! Fast, clear feedback loops provide such a boost!

Comment · 2 years ago
Comment · 2 years ago
For Python's syntax: https://docs.python.org/3/library/ast.html

If you want examples of code → ast, googling for [python ast visualizer] turns up a few tools

Comment · 3 years ago
There’s a lot to unpack in the quoted passage, but it is not an ad hominem attack. That you think it is, and then turn around to make an ad hominem argument of your own explains your misinterpretation.
Comment · 3 years ago
If anything this will turn out to be the opposite of the truth: People hit by autonomous cars will have more to go after in court than those hit by individuals, many of whom don't have adequate coverage or savings to compensate victims. The minimum "bodily harm" insurance coverage in California is only $15,000.
Comment · 3 years ago
Ivan Sutherland wrote one of my all-time favorite pieces, called Technology and Courage. It's a short read, here: https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~wgg/smli_ps-1.pdf

He talks about the courage it takes to do risky work in our field, and gives practical techniques for overcoming barriers, such as having collaborators, deadlines, "just get started", stock compensation, etc.

Dr Sutherland also discusses the courage to keep going, or even _stop_ working on a project.

Given his broad background, he discusses how these dynamics play out in a wide range of fields, including education, startups, and research.

For me it is always a visceral read.

Comment · 4 years ago
Thank you Quinn! It's been both cool and instructive to see Sourcegraph take off. Godspeed!
Comment · 4 years ago
It could be doing some "fine tuning" based on the repo. That would be cool! That said, what I meant when referring to 'understanding' the non-local nature of code was in a more principled way.

For example, if an object defined in another file has a function called `rename` that takes zero arguments, when calling it from another file Copilot will likely suggest arguments if there are variables like `old` and `new` near the cursor, even though `rename` actually doesn't take any, just because functions called `rename` typically take arguments. This behavior is in contrast to a tool like an IDE that can trace through the way non-local code references work.

Comment · 4 years ago
Does it seem to only understand imports of public libraries? If so, it's likely that, rather than understanding the contents of those libraries, it's learning from others' use of those library APIs. If not, it is likely just understanding the words in the API at a shallow depth.
Comment · 4 years ago
Yes, this was precisely what I was referring to. In small-enough programs (e.g. one file) Copilot has all the context. The other extreme would be something like the Chromium codebase. Because of this, Copilot looks better in quick demos than real-world use. (Though of course it is very impressive and this tech will get there, hopefully very soon!)
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Super interesting question. I don't know.

I suspect they will dominate all the largest technology markets for the long run, unless the government intervenes. I might be wrong.

They may not dominate the future of "technology markets", though, if the sum of the long tail dominates. Right now FAANG is 42% of the NASDAQ Composite 100.

Comment · 6 years ago
> I've tried to explain this to VC firms. Instead of making one $2 million investment, make five $400k investments. Would that mean sitting on too many boards? Don't sit on their boards. Would that mean too much due diligence? Do less. If you're investing at a tenth the valuation, you only have to be a tenth as sure.

This turned out to be absolutely right, and the < $2M checks have ballooned in volume. They are invested by firms that do not take board seats and do comparatively less due diligence.

That said with the benefit of more hindsight I think the reason there are no more Googles is that FAANG has a stronghold on the largest technology markets.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton