RainyDayTmrw

9 ms·

91.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
There's a legal principle known as "attractive nuisance"[1] that might be relevant here. The idea is that if you create conditions, which are likely to lead to harm, and you _knew or should have known better_ (so you can&#x27
92.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
I fear we're regressing. There is a concept in browser UX design called the "line of death"[1] - the delineation between trusted browser UX and untrusted website UX. Unfortunately, because it looks ugly, every new year of vis
93.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
What I've heard - and obviously I can't confirm this - is that their only pricing tier is "call us" - at which point they try to figure out how much money you're making and ask for a slice of it.
94.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
I think we are, collectively, greatly underestimating the value of determinism and, conversely, the cost of nondeterminism. I've been trialing a different product with the same sales pitch. It tries to RCE my incidents by correlating g
95.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
For context, this is because Python uses __init__.py files to indicate which directories are modules. They can contain contents, but quite often are empty placeholders with meaning. Removing those would make the corresponding Python modules
96.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
It's the safe thing to do. If you endorse a fork, and the new maintainer goes rogue, it's on you. Or, let a prevailing fork naturally emerge, and hopefully that vets them a bit in the process.
97.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
That's a common enough take, and I think there's some truth to it, but I think it's overly simplistic. I think there is certainly a motivation that such scams target, but I don't know if "greed" is necessarily
98.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
That's a circular self-justification.
99.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
I think the other commenters are correct that the fundamental issue is that LLMs use in-band signaling with a probabilistic system. That said, I think finer-grained permissions at the deterministic layer and at the layer interface boundary
100.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Yeah, I dunno. This seems to have really missed the mark. I do think the original[1] is worth a read. Even if I didn't like the style, I can appreciate the message: complexity is a cost, spend your complexity budget on things that matt
101.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
That's only "fair" in a certain, academic sense, which claims that willingness to pay more money makes someone more "deserving" - completely ignoring socioeconomic status. That also offends a lot of people who oppos
102.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Presumably the poster wanted to differentiate e-bikes (electrical motor assisted) with fully human powered (traditional) bikes.
103.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
This is possibly not the gotcha people want it to be. LLMs have no morality. That's not a value judgment. That's pointing out not to personify a non-person. Like Bryan Cantrill's lawnmower[1], writ large. They're amoral
104.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
> The three biggest levers are (1) “N-1 backfills”, (2) requiring a business rationale for promotions into senior-most levels, and (3) shifting hiring into cost efficient hiring regions. None of these are the sort of inspiring topics tha
105.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
The vast majority of numbers also aren't useful or interesting.
106.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
I dunno about this. Infra-as-code has always been a major source of danger. Now we want to put AI on it?
107.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Is this safe to use in public facing web servers? (Can adversaries trigger hash-DoS[1]?) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_attack#Hash_flooding
108.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
How does that work? It defies intuition. It distills existing data. How is that better than the initial data?
109.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Misguided efficiency, perhaps. Good systems have slack to absorb variance. Squeeze out too much slack, and the next big shock takes down the whole system. Add to that incentive misalignment rewarding the wrong type of efficiency, perhaps.
110.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
I wish I could click into the "real bugs" and see full example output.
111.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
We've somehow built extremely fragile systems. Technological, yes, but not only technological. Also social, economical, and structural. Somehow, our systems can no longer absorb even slight shocks. Then, when the job market contracts b
112.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Yeah, the system was suspect. All else being equal, I still think greater access was an improvement.
113.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Oh, I 100% agree that this was, and is, a bad system. But given the system that exists, all else being equal, I think it's better that access to the system was more widespread.
114.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Yeah, I wonder what Java got wrong. I still don't know. I'm not convinced it was inherent. Wasm is doing fine. What did Wasm get right that Java got wrong?
115.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
An interesting analogy could be Rust's unsafe. One important property of unsafe is that it's not inherently contagious. A safe function can contain an unsafe block, and that unsafe block can contain unsafe code. What this entails
116.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
A lot of financial schemes sound like they could be above-board on paper, but in practice degenerate out of control. Securitization is a classic here. It's not that securitization is inherently bad or wrong, but it creates a lot more s
117.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
I heard about this, too. Sadly, we were not in the right place at the right time, so to speak, to be able to grab some of these candidates.
118.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
On a second reading, the extra "o" might not have been a typo, but instead a reference to the early days of the Google search results page, where extra letters "o" were used for pagination.
119.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
I'm not sure where this originated. During the software boom of the mid-2010s, someone told me that the vast majority of venture capitalists are lemmings[1]. That idea is as true as it ever was, and perhaps even more so in today's
120.
by RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Intentional or not, that sounds too uncomfortably close to personal bragging.

More ›