Mond_

5 ms·

1.
by Mond_ 6d ago
I agree on both accounts fwiw.
2.
by Mond_ 6d ago
My understanding is that this one was never really "official", and that the guy who released it wasn't following standard procedures. That's not even the official Google github account.
3.
by Mond_ 6d ago
Fair enough, I missed that specific line. The point still stands that I wouldn't expect this to have GDM leadership backing. (If you're planning to use this at all, that matters for how much faith you should have in the product.)
4.
by Mond_ 6d ago
Yes, and one thing to understand about Google is that no AI framework or tool is guaranteed to survive unless it has the explicit backing of Google Deepmind. "Effort in GCP" is a red flag. (See Gemini CLI, which was shut down in f
5.
by Mond_ 6d ago
The reality with releases like this is that I'm 90% sure most Google bigwigs have never heard of it, and it's misleading to label it as "Google's" in the title. Yes, it was developed by Google employees, that does n
6.
by Mond_ 16d ago
> Hacker News Guidelines > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
7.
by Mond_ 16d ago
Where did you hear that it got pushed back out? It's going strong as far as I can tell.
8.
by Mond_ 17d ago
Tao is so incredibly ahead of the curve in this regard that you trying to accuse him of not "going with the program" is a bit silly. He's not an AI Luddite by any means.
9.
What makes $BigTechCompany's products bad, anyway?(herecomesthemoon.net)
2 points by Mond_ 17d ago|1 comments
10.
by Mond_ 25d ago
absolutely crazy to make this a "paid tier user" feature. the primary difference between the free and the paid versions should be the amount of inference quota you have access to
11.
by Mond_ 26d ago
This does sound a lot like there's a real risk of C++ imploding, in some form or another. (Arguably, it has been in that state for a while now.) I personally agree that contracts probably shouldn't be in the standard, but this who
12.
by Mond_ 1mo ago
I don't think this goal was ever realistic, it was just a marketing pitch to get a foot in the door.
13.
by Mond_ 1mo ago
I run Linux as my primary operating system and I have never even heard of eBPF! I'd be surprised if most end users have.
14.
by Mond_ 1mo ago
> I don't know why this comment's getting down voted. Because just calling something bad does not add a lot to the conversation. It's not thoughtful, interesting, or good.
15.
Remaking Party House(herecomesthemoon.net)
2 points by Mond_ 2mo ago|0 comments
16.
by Mond_ 2mo ago
Afaik Herb Sutter largely stopped working on Cppfront a few months ago, and was never quite supposed to be a real thing, just a personal playground (or so Sutter claims at this point, anyway). Afaik Carbon is at this point the only attempt
17.
by Mond_ 2mo ago
Stupid question, can't this trivially be solved by having a movable constructor / builder type that then gets turned into a non-movable type when built?
18.
by Mond_ 3mo ago
It's not about having to remember them, it's that you shouldn't waste these short single symbols on operations that are only rarely used. This stuff (especially the ternary) are a step backwards. There is just no reason to wa
19.
by Mond_ 3mo ago
> Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy less unhappiness > Money can very much buy happiness. Most of the things that make you unhappy can be remedied with money Was it too hard to read beyond the first comma?
20.
by Mond_ 3mo ago
It's their own blog and they can do whatever they feel like to break up the flow. I think it's quite charming tbh
21.
by Mond_ 4mo ago
Sort specifically is kind of a weird example, but C++ is full of awful naming. std::map (which is not a hash map, which is what most people would expect), std::move (which doesn't move), std::vector (which is not a vector), and std::ve
22.
by Mond_ 4mo ago
Yes, with the trade-off of essentially requiring exceptions, which are also banned in some codebases.
23.
by Mond_ 4mo ago
Is it really, though, or is it just in comparison to C++? Tbh I never expected that experiment to go anywhere. I guess that leaves Carbon (and large scale efforts to rewrite C++ in Rust).
24.
by Mond_ 4mo ago
May I ask how far you got? It's not a good representation of industrial engineering, for sure, but I do like the actual logistics management and "how do I deal with my technical debt" later in the game. I think most of this o
25.
by Mond_ 4mo ago
It isn't anymore, though, that's kind of the whole point of the article.
26.
by Mond_ 4mo ago
Strategic vision. The common sentiment is that you didn't really want to do that. You expect higher returns from only having a single base model.
27.
by Mond_ 5mo ago
How about just panic? If a wrap happens and you don't expect it, it's almost always a severe bug. Then, dedicated APIs for wrapping behavior where you expect it to happen.
28.
by Mond_ 5mo ago
Not OP, but I've had the same conclusion. It's a bit cheeky to call it a puzzle game, but I don't think it's strictly wrong. Imo it's better to approach Demon's Souls as an exploration puzzle game with RPG stuf
29.
by Mond_ 5mo ago
No shade thrown, but I always preferred my game with some amount of story or artistic ambition beyond mere puzzling. I'd take Void Stranger or probably even Deadly Rooms of Death: The Second Sky over Stephen's Sausage Roll any day
30.
by Mond_ 6mo ago
I don't think that's what that word means.

More ›