ocharles

I felt old seeing this posted again, but I think I feel even older due to the lack of comments saying "I remember this"!

You can learn how to build an LLM from scratch while doing all of those things...

A small diff /= a small change! They are completely separate things. Quite often a small diff is hours of actual work. Even in this case _finding_ those lines could have taken work - we don't really know.

I don't think there's anything passive here - it's a very constructive and valid argument. Are we not here to have a discussion?

We're a Haskell shop, so I usually just say "review the current commit. You're an experienced Haskell programmer and you value readable and obvious code" (because that it is indeed what we value on the team). I'll often ask it to explicitly consider testing, too

I recently started using LLMs to review my code before asking for a more formal review from colleagues. It's actually been surprisingly useful - why waste my colleagues time with small obvious things? But it's also gone much further than that sometimes with deeper reviews points. Even when I don't agree with them it's great having that little bit more food for thought - if anything it helps seed the review

So - exceptions are for invariant violations? I'm essentially trying to work out what it is that makes something "exceptional"

What enclosure houses the JBOD?

I'm curious how much this costs to run. I.e., how much are you paying for electricity?

I write Haskell with Claude Code and it's got remarkably good recently. We have some code at work that uses STM to have what is essentially a mutable state machine. I needed to split a state transition apart, and it did an admirable job. I had to intervene once or twice when it was going down a valid, but undesirable approach. This almost one shot performance was already a productivity boost, but didn't quite build. What I find most impressive now is the "fix" here is to literally have Claude run the build and see the errors. While GHC errors are verbose and not always the best it got everything building in a few more iterations. When it later got a test failure, I suggested we add a bit more logging - so it logged all state transitions, and spotted the unexpected transition and got the test passing. We really are a LONG way away from 3.5 performance.

This keeps getting parroted but it's flawed/overly idealistic/frankly naive. An awful of children are, unfortunately, poorly parented. This is not a new phenomenon, nor something we seem to be improving. OTOH, exposure to extreme material for young children is increasing, and has consequences beyond that child. Exposure to extreme pornography leads to a warped view of sex which affects everyone this child might have sexual encounters with. Exposure to extreme violent material leads to the murder of other innocent children.

I don't know where I stand on this legislation - my gut is that it's too heavy handed and will miss the mark. But I think we need to stop saying this falls solely on parents. The internet is far too big, and parenting is far too varied for this to work. I wish it would, but it won't. There simply aren't enough parents that care enough.

Because we know the implications of poor quality food, and we also know those who would buy it have no choice but to buy the cheapest. So, no thanks. I'd much rather the state intervene here and keep this crap out. This "let consumers choose" argument is tiring when consumers don't have the ability to choose. They are just trying to survive

Because of the volume of documents, or because of some cognitive change at that age?

Honestly there's way more there, and you get consistent solid speeds. Find a provider with a lot of retention and you can find almost all mainstream media regardless of it's age. (Public) torrents tend to track what's popular and quickly fade. The masses seem to favour low size encodes too, so if you're looking for more quality (and again, public trackers) you're usually much more out of luck.