nixpulvis

You can't claim that the tech industry isn't innovating. You can say that innovation effort has shifted away from many things that still need it. The issue I have is that the companies and products are so large and complex that they are extremely difficult to compete with.

This is needed, but likely not enough yet. With the rise of Discord servers as community forums, we've lost the wealth of Q&A they used to provide. Being able to search for a user with the same issue as you and find it was no small part of what's let us all learn to program in the first place, as well as critical to the training data that powers the AIs we use to answer similar questions more quickly.

There will always be new questions, one that even AI cannot figure out alone. Things that require other environments or polled feedback. Making these channels indexable on the internet is critical to the progress of information.

Yes, this is the real continuation of that. I still don't agree with the deprecation, and hope the support will be continued.

> In Scion, every commit, rebase, or merge happens on the server, so there’s nothing to push...

I think this is the wrong way to solve problems and goes the wrong way toward solving real problems.

Maybe I'm a bad person for this, but I both love coding and designing abstractions, and I enjoy LLM use. It's like having my old college friends to argue with about whenever I want.

This has always been true to a large extent. Unless you're cleared to carve out your own space of a project, or you're working off an already detailed issue/feature request.

Doesn't pi just have 4 tools?

- read - write - edit - bash

What is the harness doing that's not the model.

I've been assuming a harness is basically a set of tools and a TUI for passing text to the model and the model coming back with tool calls and user responses.

Are the tools really that complex and different between harnesses?

A coworker was trying to tell me that models perform better in their own agent harnesses. I use both `pi` and `omp` and I'm somewhat skeptical. I understand that the tool calls might be slightly different. But really how much impact on the model itself does the harness have?

I'm going to completely ignore the first part of this post because I'm not interested in arguing about how severe the issues with SHA-1 are. I think it's accepted that there are flaws.

So given that, I'm more interested in the arguments for why migrating to SHA-256 is problematic.

The biggest issue I see, after skimming over it, is the submodule breakage for new projects trying to link to old projects. This seems solvable frankly, but is the only serious issue I see. Everything else will be worked out as software is updated IMO.

I think LLMs providers pretty directly compete with content they scrape like Wikipedia and SO...

A reference to a value isn't the same as the value itself. I'm confused the point you're making here.

You could keep using the old compiler, no?

I firmly believe that tech companies being responsible for parenting our children is a deeply misguided response to a failing society and overworked parenting generations.

I benefitted greatly from early access to computers and the full scale of their capabilities. It was a constant issue in my family limiting screen time, and who knows what the exact rules should be for everyone. For me it was a dynamic ruleset I was actively involved in the development of.

I could make compelling arguments to my Mom, that will not be the case with Meta, or Apple, or Anthropic.

Accepting "OS level" age validation is surrendering to a system meant to protect the industry, not our kids future. And while there are serious conversations we should be having about how to control technology use, it should be about parental controls and sane defaults, not age validations and legally restricted access by providers.

I hate how even the most progressive-minded people on most fronts are falling into this trap because big tech has failed them and they are angry at it all.