skydhash

22 ms·

421.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Pretty much. I use OpenBSD and the basic stance is that you need to look at the code of the system and the various software in ports. Because the only way to get timely support is you helping yourself and then the community will help you. A
422.
by skydhash 4mo ago
I’ve not done high level ML, but I’ve done introductory ML and the truth is while the input space and the output space can have N and M dimensions, there’s not a lot of constraints involved. The matrix there are more randoms. The whole ML f
423.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> And I gave you several examples where people can say that the failure of doing the task according to the requirement of TODAY will only appear later. That's your problem: you see "3 weeks" and you conclude "so it is
424.
by skydhash 4mo ago
I know that with oscilloscopes, it’s recommended to use 5x instead of nuquist 2x of the highest frequency you want to use., but the most reasonable argument I’ve heard for higher than 48kHz sampling is digital audio effects. But for the end
425.
by skydhash 4mo ago
I would like Opus, but I’m using a subsonic client on iOS and my choice has been Flac (Alac?), MP3, or AAC. Opus wouldn’t play (There are some that supported it, but I didn’t like their UX).
426.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> The author just teaches readers to be idiot, to not think, to just see someone saying "3 weeks" and then jumps into "YAGNI" without even checking if YAGNI applies or not. If that’s your take away from the article, n
427.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Human being trained is already proven (that’s how most maintainers came to be). Can you explain how AI can be trained in the above context?
428.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Chet has already told the author about B in the first sentence (that’s how the author knows B is complicated). The rest is Chet trying to justify B without asking why the author choose A. It’s not Chet explaining what B is, it’s Chet explai
429.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Most LLM users wants to do less work, not more. Shaping LLM output to be human like is a lot of work, and that assumes you know what the human version looks like.
430.
by skydhash 4mo ago
There’s a reason most project don’t have a lot of unit tests. Because a specification, even when fully documented, doesn’t stay static enough to have time to write tests. And if it’s fluid enough, maintaining those tests will hamper velocit
431.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Your employee is very late on this one. Other companies have tried that and have already been burned by people tokenmaxxing.
432.
by skydhash 4mo ago
I don’t have a “homelab”, just an old mac mini that runs jellyfin, gonic and calibre (content server), and on which I do try some linux things. It runs Debian and the actual maintenance is mostly “apt update && apt upgrade”. I don’t
433.
by skydhash 4mo ago
YAGNI means you ain’t gonna need it. And if you can’t ask why A stays and B can’t be accepted, that just means you believe your reasoning is always the correct one, and your team leader is an wrong to not accept it. And as I’ve said. If you
434.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Your argument is always about: We need to to task X today, we're going to do Task Y later. But we need both task X and task Y to complete the whole project. But the solution for task X is wrong because it conflicts with task Y. And
435.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> In the car example, the solution proposed by the team leader is insufficient Because you created that situation out of the blue. And you’ve been ignoring any case where both solutions do work, but one is more complicated than the other
436.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Like trying to merge a bulldozer, a minivan, and a GT car. Because they all have 4 wheels and an engine.
437.
by skydhash 4mo ago
The whole car example is flawed because insufficient does not mean wrong or incorrect. > And in the case of Chet, you have prioritized NOTHING. You still have no idea of what Chet was raising. You have no idea of what are the risks. You
438.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> What it said is "I could do this simplistic thing now but ... that will be insufficient" > It LITERALLY says that it will not work, that it is not a good solution You have a strange definition of insufficient. > Can you
439.
by skydhash 4mo ago
It can be. But I prefer slighty more than slightly less for things that I’m using daily. My apple tv remote is more beautiful than my AVR remote, but I strongly prefer the latter. Same with my big mechanical keyboard vs my apple one.
440.
by skydhash 4mo ago
A physical thing has more degree of freedom to differentiate things. Loke distance and form. So much that you can be blind and still be able to use them. A conputer interface does not have those. You need to track the cursor and then decide
441.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> UI needs to be approachable, useful, and unobtrusive. i.e. "forgettable." Many designers absolutely can't stand the idea of designing stuff that no one pays attention to; but that's actually exactly what most UI nee
442.
by skydhash 4mo ago
If you want a macbook, go for it. I wouldn’t presume to know your needs more than you. I want something that I can easily run OpenBSD on and is amd64. And none of the apple laptop fits the bill.
443.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> According to you "I could do this simplistic thing now but it would not work" is an impossible sentence? Because that’s not what it said. If someone is talking to me, I don’t invent sentences in my head for them and assume th
444.
by skydhash 4mo ago
If you’re not a sysadmin, there’s no reason to wrestle around with OS internals and system tools. We have moved away from mainframes and now everyone is root on one’s computer, but honestly anything in /etc, /sbin and /usr&#x
445.
by skydhash 4mo ago
Trying to answer your question. Your example does not work with the article because the simplistic approach is already proven to be an ok design. The wheel will support the engine. The complex approach (maybe a non standard suspension) is f
446.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> You keep saying "the premise", but "the premise" is my criticism. I understand that the author is presenting the situation as if Chet is getting out of scope and uselessly complex. My criticism is that in the descri
447.
by skydhash 4mo ago
> Chet is saying "if we interpret today's requirement this way, what we do today has no value, if we interpret today's requirement this other way, what we do today has value". He is certainly not saying that. The prem
448.
by skydhash 4mo ago
This is where the disagreement comesfrom. You have a different interpretation of requirements. A requirement is not a list of tasks. It’s a set of needs and constraints that drive a design. In your example, the general goal could be to do a
449.
by skydhash 4mo ago
https://cockpit-project.org/
450.
by skydhash 4mo ago
It’s not about the specific timeframe. It’s about something that has no value for today’s context superseding something that do. It’s ok to anticipate changes, it’s not ok to act as if they’re already here when it’s clear that they’re not.

More ›