jibal

27 ms·

601.
by jibal 8mo ago
P.S. The response to my comment is complete nonsense. "honor-based", as used here to mean acting with integrity, has nothing at all to do with honor killings.
602.
by jibal 8mo ago
Um, yes, I know ... read the thread.
603.
by jibal 8mo ago
If you're referring to HRL then I think so.
604.
by jibal 8mo ago
More than 10,000 people already knowledgeable about SBCL and its awesomeness could simply splat the URL to HN, but I think readers here deserve more.
605.
by jibal 8mo ago
I'm a "regular" person, as are all the signatories, and you don't speak for us.
606.
by jibal 8mo ago
That's the opposite of honor-based, and those stories are warnings about going down that path.
607.
by jibal 8mo ago
What about it?
608.
by jibal 8mo ago
What did I say that is false?
609.
by jibal 8mo ago
"It" was the C++ code ... you don't even understand what you yourself wrote. > i would not worry about anything you do, because it's obvious you would never get to that point Childish whatabouting and projection. I wi
610.
by jibal 8mo ago
Not shifted on the keyboard, scans better, frees up () for other uses.
611.
by jibal 8mo ago
use [sig ...] for function types.
612.
by jibal 8mo ago
The code can be either interpreted or compiled to a binary.
613.
by jibal 8mo ago
Use [sig ...] to specify function types.
614.
by jibal 8mo ago
Humbling.
615.
by jibal 8mo ago
A fairly simple chemical reaction could cause an organism to turn or move toward or away from light in the ocean, with various imaginable benefits. And note that box jellyfish have 24 eyes, some of them highly complex, but no brain. You can
616.
by jibal 8mo ago
Darwin was not puzzled. “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, co
617.
by jibal 8mo ago
This is an abbreviated version of a far more nuanced WaPo article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/23/ai-econ...
618.
by jibal 8mo ago
f(x) - g(x) ∈ O(1)
619.
by jibal 8mo ago
The site is junk and the comments are racist.
620.
by jibal 8mo ago
No, they refuted their strawman.
621.
by jibal 8mo ago
> code you didn't write He did write it. > you're banking in the LLMs quite strongly when you do that, which may just work but i would be very worried about myself if i were in his boots I too would worry if it were you do
622.
by jibal 8mo ago
Non sequitur. Again, no trust was involved, only verification through extreme testing. Also, as others have pointed out, "someone with no experience" simply isn't true.
623.
by jibal 8mo ago
Never trust the headline. From the article: > And comparing DNA and archaeology at individual sites suggests that for some in the Viking bands, "Viking" was a job description, not a matter of heredity.
624.
by jibal 8mo ago
Did you read the OP? No trust, only thorough verification.
625.
by jibal 8mo ago
Which editor? > Imagine if I had written a comment to explain my intent for the function before I started writing the function body. The loon programming language (a Lisp) has "semantic functions", where the body is just the do
626.
by jibal 8mo ago
> It's honest. It's not, nor is it well informed. People are currently developing languages specifically for use by LLMs. > It's not the best tool for the job for a lot of things Then how could it possibly be the final
627.
by jibal 8mo ago
[flagged]
628.
by jibal 8mo ago
I know what falsifiable means--you're misusing it and I simply adopted your misuse. A claim is falsifiable or not ... it can't be made falsifiable. The way you're using it is "Can we come up with a test to show that it&#
629.
by jibal 8mo ago
I wouldn't take baseless "likely" claims or the people who make them seriously.
630.
by jibal 8mo ago
It's not falsifiable because it's not false.

More ›