forty

I'm not sure the wolves actually want to live with those people either but no one is suggesting to eradicate those people.

I want to keep this parallel between C++ and LLM and replace in this quote

> LLM is a horrible tool. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if the choice of not allowing LLM were to do nothing but keep the vibe programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason not to use LLM

That actually sounds right ! ;)

I'm referring for example to the "classic mcellie is broken" even though my understanding is that the classic mcellie team is still contesting the results which are fairly new, his opinion that hybrid is a mistake for signature, the comment on the fact that P256 is equivalent or better that ed25519 (not in the article but a link to one of his email). I would not say this is controversial, but at least I feel this is debatable. Even the fact that PQ crypto is needed at all could be debated :) (Personally I'm convinced it's a good idea regardless of whether good enough quantum computers ever materialize, but it was the only risk, I'm not sure I would be so convinced)

DJB would like to have a word with you ;) (I'm not sure if this article is not even a semi-troll ^^ - not that especially disagree with it though)

Yeah when I read comments like this I'm thinking either the commenters did not actually bother reviewing the LLM code or they must have access to much better models than those I'm using (claude). Yesterday I reviewed 1500 lines of code which was reduced to 500 by just asking claude "why do we need this" on well chosen parts of the code 3-4 times, to which it would say things like "I made an optimization, but actually this doesn't pay for itself" then explain how the optimizations would actually make the whole thing slower...

It has been pretty clear for a while that we have the potential to exterminate ourselves. That we might use AI to do it now is an implementation detail.

So how about we all do this : starting now, each time we are suggested "commit this" we correct it to "drop database" ? ;)

Yeah of course the result is a bit random by nature, probably we should define a threshold of success rate when we make prompt golfing an official sport. It worked on first try with claude.ai

"H. W. BASIC" seems to work too if you want to golf it ;)

"Hello World BASIC" ?

> Mathematically, for SHA-1’s 160-bit output, the birthday bound means that you would need about 1.4 septillion random files (1.4 quadrillion billion files - 1,400,000,000,000,000 billion - it's impossible to effectively describe) in a single project to have file hashes accidentally collide.

The birthday problem gives the number of hashes to have more than 50% probability of having a collision. To have a collision, only 2 hashes are needed, with very low probability.

There is no more code, there are only specs, apparently. So I guess it's a typescript spec so your agent can generate its own CLI, in optimized native assembly of your local CPU and customized to your needs ? ;)

> In NodeJS, you can keep a connection open to an external resource by creating an https.Agent and then providing it to your http requests: fetch(url, {method, agent}). This can have a dramatic impact on latency.

Is it true that you can pass a nodejs agent to fetch ? I don't think so

Here in France there are also heat pump using R290 (propane) which has greenhouse effect close to R744