lucianbr

As long as we don't underestimate the power of motivated reasoning for other certain people as well, who like AI coding for various ideological or financial reasons.

I think microservices are supposed to be easier to deploy independently, that's the whole point. And if they are not, it means you're just doing it wrong.

But in truth, all the projects with microservices I have seen in real life had deployment coordination problems, and looked to me like distributed monoliths. So maybe it's a 'no true scotsman' thing. Maybe they are always, or at least most of the time, harder.

Makes it harder to justify using them.

Maybe say what you think they were saying? What is it with these maximally ambiguous comments?

To me "Are you aware of the world you live in?" suggests "If you don't even know this, you don't know anything. This is the first thing anyone should know". I'm willing to learng if they meant something else, but I guess that's asking a lot.

> Are you aware of the world you live in?

Certainly this world comprises many other things than the Holocaust and IBM's support of it. Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.

May be so, still your quote doesn't make any sense as a reply to my comment.

"This article is about nothing". "Well of course it is, they say right on the page they talked to some people".

The issue is "the matter" completely lacks any substance.

"An insider told me NVidia spent 10 billions on hamburgers yesterday."

"An insider told me NVidia is thinking about maybe spending up to 10 billions on hamburgers or some foodstuffs by 2050".

Can you spot any differences?

My thought exactly. "May guarantee" is meaningless nonsense.

> Nvidia has revised its plans to support a proposed OpenAI data center project in Ohio and is now expected to initially guarantee less than $120 billion

There is no actual information in this article. "Plan", "proposed", "expected", "initially", "less than". It's just a report on the thoughts of some people.

There is hardware attestation that prevents a perfect sandbox from being possible.

Unless you know how to build a sandbox that can simulate a TPM with a key inside that only Google knows. Or something like that. I'm not an expert but there's plenty of information on the internet about this. It's definitely more than "the sandbox is buggy".

For me it's the rythm. It's a list of chapters, each with a list of subchapters, plenty of bulleted lists, and paragraphs of close to equal size with sentences of close to equal size. Everything is trying to be an element with an impact. Each sentence, each paragraph, each entry in a list, each list, each subchapter... feels like I'm being hit with an impact drill. This! Then this! Now this! Conclusion! But there's more!

It's not a human way to think, talk or write.

Gee I wonder if anyone on HN might have some ulterior reason to write such a statement, without it being true.

> The "interesting new phenomenon", obviously, is the potential of the generalization of what expressed in the title.

Why is this thing so difficult to name and you need to describe it in such a roundabout way? "Drones might be shot down a lot"? It's neither new nor an intellectual curiosity. "Drones are used for war" also not. It's been happening for years now. What is so interesting? Can you name it without references to generalizations of expressions of other references?

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Seems ths qualifies in spades.

What's the difference between using GPT to write the prompt to GPT, and "thinking"? The LLM uses the first tokens to predict more tokens, and then uses those tokens to predict even more tokens.