jmull

17 ms·

271.
by jmull 1y ago
It shouldn't matter. Decompress's Reader shouldn't depend on the size of the buffer of the writer passed in to its "stream" implementation. So that's a bug in the Decompress Reader implementation. The article c
272.
by jmull 1y ago
I think there's just a bug somewhere, not a general "safety" problem.
273.
by jmull 1y ago
I'm wondering what's on the horizon with git 3.0? From my (very limited) perspective, I just kind of thought git had settled in to 2.x and there wasn't any reason to break compatibility.
274.
by jmull 1y ago
> unit tests are using the same system to write your invariants twice For unit tests, the parts of the system that are the same are not under test, while the parts that are different are under test. The problem with using AI to review AI
275.
by jmull 1y ago
> In my view, the best code review is structural. It brings in context from parts of the codebase that the diff didn’t mention. That may be true for AI code. But it would be pretty terrible for human-written code to bring this up after
276.
by jmull 1y ago
> …based on data from nearly 200,000 consenting research participants… They had to clarify it was “consenting” since it’s the opposite of their normal default. (You also have to wonder how consensual it really was.)
277.
by jmull 1y ago
Well, it has things like @Table and wants you to write SQL using Swift syntax. It's good that it lets you bypass this, but it encourages using the wrappers so I think that's going to be most of the usage. Also, if you're goin
278.
by jmull 1y ago
The abstractions you build your code on top of can be very costly, and a lot of that cost is due later. You need to carefully weight the costs of abstractions you adopt. That goes double (or triple or quadruple) for data access, which is ty
279.
by jmull 1y ago
I tried it and it works well, and looks good. What's the bad thing I'm supposed to be seeing?
280.
by jmull 1y ago
FYI, there's crypto.randomUUID() That's built in to server side and browser.
281.
by jmull 1y ago
Simply avoiding Javascript won't cut it. While npm is a huge and easy target, the general problem exists for all package repositories. Hopefully a supply chain attack mitigation strategy can be better than hoping attackers target packa
282.
by jmull 1y ago
...At a logical level,
283.
by jmull 1y ago
I'm baffled by the hate. So far, it's just some nice looking cosmetic changes. All entirely inconsequential -- I've seen nothing yet that will affect my workflows in any way.
284.
by jmull 1y ago
In that post (I think your own?) it says, "Local analysis only. It's not looking in function definitions." But local analysis means analysis of function definitions. At least it does to me. I can't think of what else i
285.
by jmull 1y ago
> avoiding whole-of-program analysis Why, though? Perhaps it's unfeasibly complex? But if that's the argument, then that's an argument that needs to be made. The paper sets out to refute the idea that C++ already has the i
286.
by jmull 1y ago
The analysis you link to is insufficient. E.g., the first case is "Inferring aliasing". He presents some examples and states, "The compiler cannot infer a function’s aliasing requirements from its declaration or even from its
287.
by jmull 1y ago
That's a very nice lecture, but I think it's almost entirely digressive. The "success" of the Patriot Act really has nothing to do with classic liberalism, neoliberalism, leftists, Democrats, Republicans, or Kamala Harri
288.
by jmull 1y ago
This vision of AI programming is DOA. The first step is "define the problem clearly". This would be incredibly useful for software development, period. A 10x factor, all by itself. Yet it happens infrequently, or, at best, in sign
289.
by jmull 1y ago
Strong gun regulations have a couple of orders of magnitude impact on one type of gun violence, but you think that’s irrelevant and off-topic to whether strong gun regulations would have an impact on another form of gun violence? How could
290.
by jmull 1y ago
The revision process is a normal part of reporting employment numbers. Since real-time actual numbers aren't feasible, they use approximate and correlated indicators initially and later revise when more solid data arrives. I can't
291.
by jmull 1y ago
> still being produced by the professional career statisticians that have long worked there ...who all know that if they want to remain employed they better produce reports The administration likes. I doubt they like it, but probably few
292.
by jmull 1y ago
> last year's revisions To be clear, these are this administration's revisions, about what happened in the previous administration. They also don't have much credibility. One problem with firing the economist running the
293.
by jmull 1y ago
There's nothing wrong with staying focused (on grabbing the money). Your ideas are potentially lubricative over time, but first it creates more work and risk for the attacker.
294.
by jmull 1y ago
I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this. Some people try to think about how to write less code, and some people try to think about how to write more code.
295.
by jmull 1y ago
Yeah, I get that learning the codes is a little annoying, but not actually harder than finding, incorporating, and learning one of the APIs here. Also one is standard while the other is not. Seems a bit nuts to use a package for this.
296.
by jmull 1y ago
I don't think they ever hesitate to make sqlite better. It's just that they have a different definition of "better" than you.
297.
by jmull 1y ago
> Did I misinterpret the experts' assertion of imposibility? Misstated, I'd say. You said "nobody" but the actual quote is about the assumed conventional wisdom of the time, which is quite different. And while this wa
298.
by jmull 1y ago
I kind of love the diy aspect of ai coding. A dermatologist a short while ago with this idea would have to find a willing and able partner to do a bunch of work -- meaning that most likely it would just remain an idea. This isn't just
299.
by jmull 1y ago
"Being good isn’t enough" I agree with that. I've seen people get frustrated with this where they and their employer (as embodied by their manager or colleges) are talking past each other, in a sense. Employee is very good at
300.
by jmull 1y ago
Sure... the laws of physics last broke backwards compatibility at the Big Bang, Zod last broke backwards compatibility a few months ago.

More ›