Pup Biru

as if we needed any more reasons to demand fibre

do NOT make mistakes

DROP *

much more preferable to

GRANT *

that is absolutely NOT the way that works in any functional environment

your ability to deploy quickly comes directly from your automation, and those automation tools - NOT developers - have the secrets in them

deploy to prod multiple times per day isn’t some win by itself… the ability for large teams (not 1 fuckwit and a goon squad of agents) to deploy without breaking things and in ways that are safe is the win here… anyone can deploy to prod multiple times per day… but anyone isn’t netflix (the originators of the “multiple times per day” line) with the uptime they achieve over years while doing it

if you talk AND type you can burn twice the tokens and get the same result! it’s a win win win

along with most modern languages… it’s the way we deal with async when you don’t want callback hell. it’s just a complex problem domain

like… what… JITs are complex so that’s a problem for V8 specifically?

a great illustration of the dunning-kruger effect

hard disagree on what belongs in the same commit history… a single merge should be an entire feature, and your commit history should read like a change log

Squashed commits are not atomic … overall task requires modifying multiple different systems

that’s why monorepos exist

i’d say squashed commits aren’t always atomic, but this is one of the biggest reasons people add the complexity of a monorepo: if changes cross multiple systems, ideally their merge/revert should be an atomic operation

you either have deployment complexity (ensuring the feature is in all deployed systems before switching over), code complexity (dealing with the feature only maybe exiting in parts of the system), or repo complexity (where tools manage a monorepo and thus commits and PR/MRs are atomic across your system)

the actual way to solve “leftist legal crusades” (if they exist): anti-SLAPP laws that punish frivolous lawsuits… but that would hurt them more than “leftists”

either… some apps have just started to do single factor login with just email, profile options can be optional, if there are required fields or terms of service to agree to then that can come after email validation

i think these days the best practice for mobile apps re retention (other than sso or passkey) is to just ask for an email, then from the validate link continue with register

reason being that more steps to register means more ways people are likely to drop out of the flow, and this is basically about as short as it can be

when the user has validated their email, then they’re more invested so they are more likely to complete

that also fits nicely with what we’re talking about with good security

“not actively harmful” and “notionally the bare minimum” are pretty low bars and i’m glad that, for once in modern memory, mozilla cleared them

again, that’s already all happening though…

this is a “yes and” situation; there’s no or about it

the part of the homeless shelter that costs money isn’t the roof, so that’s a false dichotomy… not to mention loads of those kind of buildings already have PVs on the roof

and being from australia, i definitely more thought heat than wet… but either way, id probably say not for the cars… its probably for the people going to and from the cars

but then you also have a roof

the other insidious part about it is that pretty much everyone agrees: experience is critical to ensuring AI isn’t just producing slop… 30% of the time you get something that’s not just working, but well architected

now when you get AI to do things, even if you go with the assertion that it’s quicker (which a lot of the time i doubt: task choice is also critical for effectively using AI to generate useful outputs), you’re grinding down on your experience… not only are you learning less, but you’re also letting your reasoning skills degrade because you’re not using them (this is a pretty well-documented effect in standard neuroscience afaik)

imo, only use AI in situations where you’d put a library in, because the level of abstraction from the problem solving is similar

i took the phrase

You don’t need to understand why they struggle, just accept that they do.

to mean that you shouldn’t assume someone is lying. they just might have different circumstance or needs. that doesn’t invalidate their experience, just that you’re solving different problems (which may not have been well communicated, and also may not even be technical problems).

if you’re trying to solve their problems, then sure that’s a discussing… but 99% of tech conversations on the internet like this are people berating others for “not understanding” the “simple” way it’s done because it works fine for them

slight disagree: proud version is actually when you become so disillusioned with your old code that you throw it all out and start again

what’s not how a model works? i didn’t say anything about how a specific thing works… i simply said that emergent behaviours are real things, and separately that consciousness doesn’t look like a human brain to be consciousness

given we can’t even reliably define it, let alone test for it, if true AGI ever comes along i’m sure there will be plenty of debate about if it “counts”

who knows: consciousness could just be bootstrapping a particular set of self-sustaining loops, which could happen in something that looks like the underlying technology that LLMs are built on

but as i said, i tend to think LLMs are not the path towards that (IMO mostly because language is a very leaky abstraction)