CipherThrowaway

9 ms·

31.
by CipherThrowaway 2y ago
The difference is absolutely not 3 seconds. That's just the lower bound. In the case that both people are present and available in the chat at the same time, sure, it's 3 seconds. If not, that extra "hi" can add latency
32.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
In theory it's Coase Theorem / Coasean bargaining. But even by economics standards, this theoretical result has little real world applicability.
33.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
I don't think the two PoVs are incompatible. Lower tolerance for mess drives people to clean earlier and more proactively. The labor equity issue is a direct consequence of differences in taste. There are lots of group dynamics that wo
34.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
> I think there's nothing wrong with seeing your partner struggling with something, talking to them about it and coming up with ideas to help them. There is something wrong here: and that's assuming your partner is the one stru
35.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
> Antonia Colins, who runs the website Balance Through Simplicity, has two adolescent daughters, one of whom struggles with neatness Another possibility: the daughter is at ease in both neat and messy environments, but the mother is only
36.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Of course not. Only titans of industry and the landed gentry of the executive class are allowed to "move fast and break things", "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" and take "imperfect action rather than pe
37.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Everyone knows that bad actors will continue to behave badly in the face of the law. This isn't the insight you seem to think it is. Really, PG's tweet has little to do with game theory or anything else. It is a first-world-proble
38.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Agree. How much corporate propaganda are people consuming that legislators are seen as wholly responsible for the bad behavior and malicious compliance actions of corporations? What does it say about the relationship between businesses and
39.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Good writing can also come out of Markov chains. Or even RNGs - if your novelist has enough time to filter the output. LLMs can't write good stuff. Human writers can write good stuff. When a good writer uses an LLM in their writing pro
40.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
He provides the cost breakdown in the blog.
41.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
> You've latched on that specific word and gone off. No, I haven't. I'm not talking about style, but something deeper. What I'm talking about is something you don't even seem to realize exists in professional wri
42.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
It says a lot about SEO copy that this is one of the areas where LLMs low quality doesn't seem to have impeded adoption. There are a ton of shitty content marketers using LLMs to churn out spam content. >After my trial, I was really
43.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Yes, I've used GPT-4. The writing sounds better, but it still sucks at writing. Most importantly, it feels like it sucks just as much as GPT-3.5 in some deeply important ways. If you use GPT-4 day-to-day, you've probably encounter
44.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
This is part of the problem with the whole discourse of comparing human writers to LLMs. Superficial things like style and tone aren't the problem, but they are overwhelmingly the focus of these discussions. It's funny to see, bec
45.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Ditto. I started out excited about LLMs and eager to use them everywhere, but have become steadily disillusioned as I have tried to apply them to daily tasks, and seen others try and fail in the same way. Honestly, LLMs can't even get
46.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
AI still can't do art. Tacky AI generated imagery is mid-2020s clip art, already recognizable to consumers and signalling negative brand associations like "cheap", "scam", "low quality."
47.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
If this is the case, it would be more inline with how other complex professions work. Entry level positions in fields like medicine, law, the sciences, architecture, engineering etc can require years of intensive training before you're
48.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
>Instead it will mean that bosses can fire 75-90% of the (very expensive) engineers, with the ones who remain left to prompt the AI and clean up any mistakes/misunderstandings. This is the same logic that has driven cheap off-shorin
49.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
If that was the assumption, then this whole thing makes even less sense. If your operation is already idempotent in its implementation, then wrapping it with this function is the last thing you'd want to do. By introducing at-most-on
50.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
One difference is that you are specifically creating distributed systems middleware, where your audience is going to be using your product in the implementation of a system of their own, and is more likely to understand the terminology and
51.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
You mentioned elsewhere that you're still finding the right wording for the product and its benefits. Fair enough. Personally, I think you should probably stop referring to this as idempotency. Maybe describe it as a retry policy, or a
52.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Eventual consistency isn't a philosophy, and it's not the idea that race conditions are acceptable. It's a consistency model with specific properties and guarantees. These races we're talking about don't produce eve
53.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
It sounds to me like there are scenarios where calls to, and certainly effects of, "idempotent" functions can take place twice. I haven't looked at Redlock for a while, but I'm assuming you're all across the histori
54.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
That's one way of reading it - although I find it's at odds with the heading "Idempotency in one line of code." If it's the case that the idempotency wrapper is only for operations that are already idempotent, it ma
55.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Neither method works. If the framework records the occurrence of the call before the effect of the function, you achieve at-most-once semantics. If it records the call after the effect, you get at-least-once. The framework might perform its
56.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
How does the idempotency work? I don't understand how functions can be made idempotent without changing or instrumenting their implementation for end-to-end idempotency.
57.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
+1 and was looking for this comment. Pop-psych Dunning-Kruger concept is based on scant research, and the original paper doesn't even make the claim that people think it does. IMV DKE pop-psych is popular because it enables a kind of s
58.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
This is LinkedIn - not HN - tier content. Comments obviously aren't code, and the idea that they are "as important" is the type of grandstanding you'd perform for a non-developer audience who have no idea what code actua
59.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
I agree with you here. Your example is an abuse scenario. In that case the hurt is the point, there isn't really meaning to it, and it really sucks that it happened to you. The thing that gives me such a bad vibe from the OP is that th
60.
by CipherThrowaway 3y ago
It's worth reading the paragraph on BPD in that page. Being conditioned by your BPD partner to excessively validate and center them is not the same as empathy.

More ›