baq

24 ms·

631.
by baq 6mo ago
It only takes understanding the exponential function and some imagination, right? Apparently an uncommon combination of traits in people ;)
632.
by baq 6mo ago
- Hyperion
633.
by baq 6mo ago
yes. but then, respect the trendline, especially if it's exponential.
634.
by baq 6mo ago
check back in a couple of years!
635.
by baq 6mo ago
it was many hours of working with codex, guidance and comparing to known-good outputs from previous years, but a sufficiently smart model would be able to just do it without any steering; it'd still take hours, but my input wouldn&#x27
636.
by baq 6mo ago
of course not. what I believe is that laymen will put all their tax docs into codex and tell it to 'do their taxes' and the tool will decide to implement the calculator, do the taxes and present only the final numbers. the layman
637.
by baq 6mo ago
'it's your fault you asked for the most efficient paperclip factory, Dave'
638.
by baq 6mo ago
> Or at "do my taxes"? codex did my taxes this year (well it actually implemented a normalization pipeline and a tax computing engine which then did the taxes, but close enough)
639.
by baq 6mo ago
> They don't have demand for the price it would require for inference. citation needed. I find it hard to believe; I think there are more than enough people willing to spend $100/Mtok for frontier capabilities to dedicate a cou
640.
by baq 6mo ago
Would be amazing if it worked with decos, these are locked down so much you don’t even get an admin interface inside your own network.
641.
by baq 6mo ago
Takeaway is write stuff down and securely delete the local chat archive
642.
by baq 6mo ago
Yes if you thoroughly shred the archives.
643.
by baq 6mo ago
yeah, jj is a different way of working with the same underlying data structure that git also operates on. I happen to like it more than git, but it took some using to because they're both used to arrive at the same end result withing
644.
by baq 6mo ago
absolutely agree with you if we're talking about clean room reverse engineering; but in the context of finding vulnerabilities it's a completely different story
645.
by baq 6mo ago
given what the clankers can do unassisted and what more they can do when you give them ghidra, no software is 'closed source' anymore
646.
by baq 7mo ago
> skeptical of convenience it's not that; it's awareness of inevitability of enshittification. they've released convenient tools, realized there's value to milk and are firing on all cylinders to capture 120% of it. g
647.
by baq 7mo ago
zuck can read your whatsapp messages, at this point I think I'd rather criminals and the government read them instead
648.
by baq 7mo ago
why bother? jj does it automatically and gives tools to work with such commits, no point to force this on yourself with git
649.
by baq 7mo ago
edit is useful and there are good reasons to use it, 'never use edit' is like 'never use goto' i.e. false - but if you're just starting out, jj new/jj squash is the way to go indeed. (my particular favorite rea
650.
by baq 7mo ago
Does ‘vibe coding’ work?
651.
by baq 7mo ago
I'm not, github sucks, git is ok. Stacked PRs are what jj makes easy but is completely broken in github and as of today they're releasing a 'stacked prs' product which only makes jj better value when working with github
652.
by baq 7mo ago
I'm asking for a github replacement, alas it might come from github itself with stacked PRs. git is good, but jj is good, too. nobody asked for a better CVS either, until someone did.
653.
by baq 7mo ago
typical for experienced git users who already 'just don't do' things which git punishes you for; after a decade it's hard to even imagine any other way, not to mention that it might be better. been there, done that, jj i
654.
by baq 7mo ago
git add -p doesn't create a commit.
655.
by baq 7mo ago
in large enough monorepos and teams and big enough changes you either do it like this or have a humongous giga-PR which eventually starts conflicting with everything.
656.
by baq 7mo ago
jj is better for some workflows, which, if you're a git expert as you claim, you conciously or subconciously avoid as 'too much work' or 'too brittle'. if you don't care about them after accepting this realizat
657.
by baq 7mo ago
the fact that almost by definition stuff that jj does is possible in git makes it hard for some folks to let go of the baggage that git has; it's simply hard to imagine a world where you can't git add ('how do you commit wh
658.
by baq 7mo ago
yes but no
659.
by baq 7mo ago
> edits to files are automatically committed this is a core feature and it makes jj possible - you're supposed to get used to jj new and jj squash into the previous bookmarked commit, which you map to the git branch head/PR. IO
660.
by baq 7mo ago
rebases don't lose branches and jj absorb trivially squashes changes to the correct head (or leaves changes alone if it can't find where to squash). is it possible in git? yeah, I've done it; there's a reason I haven&#x2

More ›