inopinatus

My point is that the bigger mistake is an individual holding access secrets at all, irrespective of medium.

I am not interested in cryptocurrencies. I am interested in people underthinking their risk profile.

If you're not buying the biometric ones, sure. Now you don't even need the gloves. Maybe kneecap armor instead.

if $5.6B is protected by your index finger then you're gonna need kidnap insurance, and a really good pair of gloves.

My desktop is still a 2017 iMac Pro and I’m holding out for a workstation-class machine with similarly excellent speakers & display, pitched at the same target market but contemporary spec main board. The standard iMac is not up to this level, and hard pass on the M5 Ultra Studio + Studio Display combo, I like the integrated form factor too much. In the meantime I work mostly on MBP. Fortunately, I am patient.

Disappointing absence of Galactica.

A coding model that can make genuinely well-considered data structure choices won't be a LLM, it'll be something more general.

It's because they don't know data structures.

"Show me your flowcharts and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won’t usually need your flowcharts; they’ll be obvious." - Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month (1975).

and essentially the same sentiment, three decades later:

"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships." - Linus Torvalds, git mailing list, 2006.

These things have not changed even though everything else is topsy-turvy. As-of current writing, I have yet to see an LLM make good data structure choices; they go for something that is superficially plausible but profoundly ill-considered (or rather, not considered at all), and then commonly burn tokens treating this implementation detail as a design invariant and trying to deal with the consequences by writing more code, instead of iterating directly upon the ill-fitting data at the root its problems.

If you're wondering, "does he mean the schema of let's say a db or other persistent store, or does he mean abstract/algebraic structures", the answer is yes to both, I think coding models are today shockingly weak when it comes to design reasoning in both domains.

Fortunately, their suggestibility means the same models will readily accept direction on the matter (perhaps even more so than on the structure of code), so I recommend doing just that, and (bonus!) this means your CS degree is still relevant.

Unfortunately, “popular language/ecosystem” includes JavaScript and PHP.

I’d go for “universal and timeless”, which has meant C for several decades now. There is, I’d concede, a reasonable chance that Rust obtains that label in our lifetimes.

I have seen Fable’s reasoning talk itself into ignoring an unequivocal prompt directive not to write comments, and then be startled by the precommit hook that rejects it. It is almost desperately predisposed to emit prose. And horribly turgid, waffling prose, to boot. Claude has been like this since Opus 4.7 though, i.e. (probably) predating the introduction of watermarking.

How is it not relevant? The construction directly contradicts what Sahai imagines happening, and the worked example is the nuclear power plant.