clivedup

There's not enough context for me (or other commenters) to really evaluate this, but every change has risk, and some projects aren't in a position to be accepting that risk.

A "real performance bottleneck that I observed during testing" is a little bit unclear whether it occurred outside of test conditions, or whether speeding up that particular bit improves anything anyone cares about.

I can use sanstun in no_std environments like on an ESP32.

Can I do that with Jason's reference implementation?

Let people build. They might have reasons you haven't foreseen.

I've wanted Wireguard on some MCUs. Great!

> No matter what your opinion on determinism is, the point I made that what OP is doing is very unlike a predictable and deterministic factory game still stands.

I didn't mention determinism or predictability.

I said "It feels like playing factorio: whatever is manual needs to be automated away.".

I'm sure you can find many differences between Factorio and what I'm doing.

> If you gave an engineer a non-deterministic solution and a deterministic solution to the exact same problem, which do you think they would prefer? Would they willingly remove determinism from a system?

We choose non-determinism in our systems a lot, because we get better outcomes in other aspects.

* Non-deterministic network latency: Packet switching rather than circuit switching.

* Multi-tasking operating contending for the same resources.

* Multi process programs whose interleaving/execution is non-deterministic.

* Profile guided optimisation, depends on the profile.

* The entire field of randomised algorithms.

I prefer deterministic processes, but if the benefits of non-deterministic processes are significant enough, I pick non-deterministic.

> Claudes were much more effective with their communication, using it in a way more similar to how humans might communicate in Slack.

Comedy gold.

> It's pleasant and I don't need to worry about how snarky I get when going over bad code.

Yes, reviewing an LLM code is at times infuriating, but at least I can be brief and direct, rather than spend 2x the effort trying to make sure it won't be interpreted as harsh.

I believe it.

I spend about 90% of at-computer time in a herdr-like tool.

It feels like playing factorio: whatever is manual needs to be automated away.

LLM writes the test. The test is crap. Update the skill. Ask an LLM to review your feedback on the last 5 PRs and write a skill for a review bot to look for similar problems and post. Now you only see PRs after they've gone through a few rounds of review.

The LLM has stopped picking up new issues. Ask an LLM to diagnose why. Ask an LLM to write a cron to regularly check if the LLM PR pipeline has halted and ping you. Get an LLM to try to diagnose it first.

I'm using a lot of LLMs! Ask an LLM to diagnose why. Write a tool to audit your usage, and produce a weekly report. Have it raise issue to reduce spending.

And like a base building game there are many competing facets, coming all at once.

Every thread relating to Github seems overwhelmingly negative towards Github.

Even as an appreciator of multiple Git forges... Github seems good?

What if it had moved from Gitlab to Github?

+1. There aren't an infinite amount of serious security vulnerabilities out there.

> > The NHS approach: close source everything.

> Yeah good luck. I've seen how these systems work at decompiling and I expect they're probably going to be really good at fuzzing too.

Me too. The agents are much faster if it has access to source. NHS would have been easy hunting grounds. Now at least they don't stand out.

"a system should be secure, even if everything about the system—except the key—is public knowledge"

Should indeed, but we've all been caught with our pants down.

> eh, "Chain of Thought for Humans" sounds stupid

> but maybe it has some nuance?

> eh, I think I still don't care enough to click

> but maybe I could post a funny comment

> it doesn't sound that funny, and besides, HN doesn't usually like these sorts of comments

> okay, let's just read the next story

> unless

Sorry, on a re-read of your comment, I realise misinterpreted this.

Worse, I claimed the moral high ground. Lesson learned!

I expect retail shops to have larger overheads than online stores.

When Amazon's policies unfairly push up prices across the Internet, it deprives us from competition pushing prices down, and having a better idea of what online overheads are.

+1. I've had successes from LLM-as-physio, but continuing to see the physio to make sure I'm not going mad.

"Just see a physio" misses that:

* I want the physio's advice during workouts

* I want the physio's advice during moments of pain

* I want the physio to explain things in more detail, but my 30-60 minute appt is not enough, and it's difficult/expensive to book them for longer.