jonahx

10 ms·

151.
by jonahx 8mo ago
> That means writing in a way that most of your audience finds compelling, readable, and not intimidating. I would agree with that. And I think emojis and unnecessary reassurances subvert that goal. It's fluff, it's more to r
152.
by jonahx 8mo ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV-KiTAAcrY
153.
by jonahx 8mo ago
Going to be that guy , even though I think this is a really nice work overall... But the winking and "cool guy" emojis are so grating. In general, technical explanations that apologize for themselves with constant reassurances l
154.
by jonahx 8mo ago
This is nicely done!
155.
by jonahx 8mo ago
High-trust doesn't mean absolute trust. Hand me a pile of receipts and I'll figure it out (probably with leeway in your favor) is much higher trust than uploading receipt, categorizing, adding explanations for exceptions, etc. O
156.
by jonahx 8mo ago
> If the goal isn't actively set to help and streamline the process In the reimbursements example, the goal shifted, by design. The environment moved from high-trust to low-trust as the department grew, and the aim moved from &quot
157.
by jonahx 8mo ago
Maybe (and I like C, for the record), but it doesn't follow necessarily. It's possible most of those devs were attracted by "working on linux," and are putting up with the pain of collaborative C. I know there's a
158.
by jonahx 8mo ago
> to accept the natural evolution of language and not become the angry old person on your lawn yelling about dabbing/yeeting/6-7/whatever the kids say today. I think "accept everything new" is as closed-minded as
159.
by jonahx 8mo ago
> And others who couldn't do the CS curiculum even though they would have loved to because they had to find a job quickly would plausibly be at their place instead. Unfortunately, also wishful thinking. A particular kind of wishful
160.
by jonahx 8mo ago
> In my view the most productive people of every field are not incentivized by money and would do it anyway. The idea that money is not an effective incentive to drive behavior is wishful thinking. Even just among devs, even just among
161.
by jonahx 9mo ago
This is really nice work, as are the other posts. If the author stops by, I'd be interested to hear about the tech used.
162.
by jonahx 9mo ago
My first thought was I'd love to see everything, from the unicorns to the mid-level success to the failures, all laid out in one big infographic.
163.
by jonahx 9mo ago
But "cognate" is not.
164.
by jonahx 9mo ago
This is the standard (for good reason) in code golf.
165.
by jonahx 9mo ago
So the stuff that agents would excel at is essentially just the "checklist" part of the job? Check A, B, C, possibly using tools X, Y, Z, possibly multi-step checks but everything still well-defined. Whereas finding novel exploit
166.
by jonahx 9mo ago
I am not saying this to be mean, because these feel like good faith questions. But they also sound like questions rooted in a purely logical view of the world, divorced of experience. That is, I don't believe it is possible that you&#
167.
by jonahx 9mo ago
> Approximately 4.6 years of continuous play, every second, to see a single jackpot win. This seems pretty reasonable, actually! Somehow it makes the 320M seem manageable.
168.
by jonahx 9mo ago
https://youtu.be/N_ympM1TPBw?si=7fnfN3RPZdF0wVv7&t=31
169.
by jonahx 9mo ago
I feel like "technically, no" but "practically, yes". Somehow the distinction of just adding a tag / using filters doesn't communicate the cultural/process distinction in the same way.
170.
by jonahx 10mo ago
If the loop is so big it's scrollable, sure use row, col, etc. That was my "vast majority" qualifier. For most short or medium sized loops, though, renaming "i" to something "meaningful" can harm readabili
171.
by jonahx 10mo ago
> but ijk I will rail against until I die. > There's no context in those names to help you understand them, you have to look at the code surrounding it. Hard disagree. Using "meaningful" index names is a distracting an
172.
by jonahx 10mo ago
This is also the basis for most SaaS purchases by large corporations. The old "Nobody gets fired for choosing IBM."
173.
by jonahx 10mo ago
Thank you, makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you think of this, re: the disparity between the economics you just laid out and the "companies are such fkn misers!" comments that always arise in these threads on bounty payouts...
174.
by jonahx 10mo ago
> because there aren't existing business processes those vulnerabilities drop seamlessly into; they're all situational and time-sensitive. what's an example of an existing business process that would make them valuable,
175.
by jonahx 10mo ago
> the actual market-clearing price of an XSS vulnerability is very low (in most cases, it doesn't exist at all) because there aren't existing business processes those vulnerabilities drop seamlessly into; they're all situa
176.
by jonahx 10mo ago
Does that mean that opening arbitrary pdfs on your laptop is unsafe?
177.
by jonahx 10mo ago
Is this a mistake by hund, or the configuration of hund by HN?
178.
by jonahx 10mo ago
> Even in the context of written mathematics, this is a very unusual style. I feel like J fans talk about it as if it's a totally normal thing to do if only you knew a little more math. Yes, it's very unusual. I think the argu
179.
by jonahx 10mo ago
Not a joke, and a famous piece of J lore! There have a been at least a couple attempts I've seen posted here of blog posts breaking down the code in a beginner friendly way. One I dug up is: https://blog.wilsonb.com/po
180.
by jonahx 10mo ago
"The reader is assumed to be familiar with J and C." And anyone reading this at the time would have been familiar with APL as well. It's not intended to be beginner friendly. Like J, and like the original J dictionary, the v

More ›