kiitos

19 ms·

241.
by kiitos 1y ago
> Core business concepts like ‘actor’ or ‘movie’ are modeled in many places ... teams re-model the same business entities in different systems, leading to conflicting definitions that are hard to reconcile. There is no singular universal
242.
by kiitos 1y ago
Seconded, to repeat an earlier comment, I've been a member of multiple organizations that satisfied SOC2 and PCI and etc. without requiring password rotation...
243.
by kiitos 1y ago
> Man people sure are taking my little project seriously. Honestly I don't care whether you take my word for it? We don't sell an AI code assistant. I just thought the experience was interesting so I published it. When you writ
244.
by kiitos 1y ago
It is for sure not a PCI requirement that user system passwords need to be changed on any kind of interval. At least, I've been a member of several PCI-compliant organizations that did not have or enforce this policy.
245.
by kiitos 1y ago
> I agree with Kenton... https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=eastdakota > CEO & co-founder of CloudFlare No kidding, huh?
246.
by kiitos 1y ago
And I've never worked in an engineering org that _didn't_ live up to the level of efficiency that I'm describing. I guess, seek better employment?
247.
by kiitos 1y ago
In any kind of minimally-effective engineering team, engineers will only ever be working with and maintaining code that's "mission critical" in the sense you're describing here, there won't be any meaningful amount
248.
by kiitos 1y ago
Yes, many anachronistic and out-of-date IT depts continue this practice, indeed.
249.
by kiitos 1y ago
No modern IT organization mandates periodical password changes since, I dunno, mid-2000's. edit : please note the "modern" qualifier, tons of IT orgs continue to mandate this anachronistic policy, sure, but those orgs aren&#
250.
by kiitos 1y ago
It turns out that the process of "tapping out characters" is (a) never any kind of bottleneck for meaningful product velocity in any kind of meaningful system; and (b) actually important for engineers to do in order to understand
251.
by kiitos 1y ago
I called that project one step away from vibe coding, which I stand behind -- 'tiny' is your editorializing. But his thing wasn't as summarily dunked-on, or ratio'd, or however you want to call it, as your thing was, I d
252.
by kiitos 1y ago
> If you prompt the LLM for code, and then you review the code, identify specific problems, and direct the LLM to fix those problems, and repeat, you can, in fact, end up with production-ready code I guess I will concede that this is pos
253.
by kiitos 1y ago
Then maybe replace "getting dunked on" with "getting ratio'd" -- underlying point is the same, the post was a bad take.
254.
by kiitos 1y ago
What? Who is spending any brain cycles on spelling? When you write a word, you just write the word, the spelling is... intrinsic? automatic? certainly not something that you have to, like, actively think about?
255.
by kiitos 1y ago
> After a few decades of writing code, it wasn't "fun" to write yet another file parser or hook widget A to API B -- which is >99% of coding today. If this is your experience of programming, then I feel for you, my dude
256.
by kiitos 1y ago
ABNF itself is specified with a well-defined grammar and syntax...
257.
by kiitos 1y ago
In practice, they definitely are not.
258.
by kiitos 1y ago
Forget about reliably-correct. The code that any current-gen LLM generates, no matter how precise the prompt it's given, is never even close to the quality standards expected of any senior-level engineer, in any organization I'v
259.
by kiitos 1y ago
LLMs are 100% absolutely not deterministic even if you constrain all of their inputs. This is obviously the case, apparent from any even cursory experimentation with any LLM available today. Equivocating the determinism of a compiler given
260.
by kiitos 1y ago
128000 is a reasonable baseline for server-class hosts.
261.
by kiitos 1y ago
I get that you think this is the case, but it really very much isn't. Take that feedback/signal as you like.
262.
by kiitos 1y ago
Huh? Is ABNF a "natural language"? Is the Go language spec a "natural language"?
263.
by kiitos 1y ago
> My prompts specify very precisely what should be implemented. I specified the public API and high-level design upfront. I let the AI come up with its own storage schema initially but then I prompted it very specifically through several
264.
by kiitos 1y ago
Right, so -- 'you think that you're "deciding what gets built and how it's designed" by iterating on the prompts that you feed to the LLM that generates the code' > My prompts specify very precisely what sho
265.
by kiitos 1y ago
...as an ambiguous and inadequately-specified specification language.
266.
by kiitos 1y ago
> I'm still deciding what gets built and how it is designed, which is the interesting part. How, exactly? Do you think that you're "deciding what gets built and how it's designed" by iterating on the prompts that
267.
by kiitos 1y ago
> but at some point most of the code you write in a given environment is rote "Most of the code one writes in a given environment is rote" is true in the same sense that most of the words one writes in any given bit of text are
268.
by kiitos 1y ago
I'm not using "hallucinate" to mean "makes mistakes". I'm using it to mean "code that is syntactically correct and passes tests but is semantically incoherent". Which is the same thing that "hall
269.
by kiitos 1y ago
well, per the zig spec, any program that relies on that "explicitly set [and] specific" value of 0xAA isn't valid, so it's absolutely a bug
270.
by kiitos 1y ago
If that's the case for you, then let me tell you, you're doing something wrong. It might not be you, it might be your team, or organization, but this is definitely not a normal experience.

More ›