t43562

10 ms·

151.
by t43562 7mo ago
The stumbling is natural - it's a sort of stable thing deriving out of the state of now. Design is something put out there which may not stand up to the test of how people actually behave i.e. it may not be stable.
152.
by t43562 7mo ago
with first past the post there will only ever be a duopoly. It forces you into voting AGAINST your least favorite choice.
153.
by t43562 7mo ago
Documents are meaningless. In rotten countries they simply get rewritten or ignored. Nothing beats an electorate who value honesty over being told what they want to hear and who punish corruption.
154.
by t43562 7mo ago
Being out of touch with the electorate is the thing they have as a feature over the house of commons. i.e. they're not trying to win the next election. They're also not there because of the favours they've done existing polit
155.
by t43562 7mo ago
It seems that this chap didn't go and implement a new library, he reimplemented an existing one and became sole-controller of it. i.e. he seems to have taken its reputation, brand whatever you call it away from the contributors and ent
156.
by t43562 7mo ago
If you decide to improve it in any way to fit your needs you can merely tell your own AI to re-implement it with your changes. Then it's proprietary to you.
157.
by t43562 7mo ago
Why does anyone need his new library? They can do what he did and make their own. I'm glad we can fork things at a point and thumb our noses at those who wish to cash in on other's work.
158.
by t43562 7mo ago
So far the issue for me is that you can generate more crap by far than you can keep an eye on. Once you have your 50k line program that does X are you really going to go in there and deeply review everything? I think you're going to en
159.
by t43562 7mo ago
Without writing some code how will people really know what's right? I've supervised people before - one thinks one knows best and pontificates at them and then when one actually starts working in the codebase onself many issues be
160.
by t43562 7mo ago
I think it's more the idea that if using a pattern is good then using all of them at once is even better.
161.
by t43562 8mo ago
Simplicity can be a powerful defence against complexity. When there are many ways something can go wrong. Rather than trying to anticipate all the different failure modes one tries at first just to handle fact of failure itself, assuming t
162.
by t43562 8mo ago
I love 0ad - it has atmosphere. I was chuffed when a28 came out and the gutted when It crashed for me but it just got fixed and now I'm trying not to think about it until 5pm.....
163.
by t43562 8mo ago
It did save in a27 for me - I had the same forking problem but was able to go back to a previous save and the other player was able to rejoin at that point. This was in a local network game.
164.
by t43562 8mo ago
That's certainly one way to do it if you're writing all the code.
165.
by t43562 8mo ago
In your cleanup method you have to take the same care of parameters that you are putting results into as any other way you can deal with this. All it does is save you from repeating such logic at all the exit points.
166.
by t43562 8mo ago
You're right that it's not needed in my example but sometimes the thing that you're freeing has pointers inside it which themselves have to be freed first and in that case you need the if. There are several other issues I hav
167.
by t43562 8mo ago
In C I just used goto - you put a cleanup section at the bottom of your code and your error handling just jumps to it. #define RETURN(x) result=x;goto CLEANUP void myfunc() { int result=0; if (commserror()) { RETURN(0);
168.
by t43562 8mo ago
IMO the reason neither of them can really write entirely trustworthy tests is that they don't have domain knowledge so they write the test based on what the code does plus what they extract from some prompts rather than based on some a
169.
by t43562 8mo ago
That would be a way to get "the right answer." i.e. it's not the LLM, it's that they're not being used properly. I get accused of the no true Scotsman argument because I think agile can be done right, for example. I
170.
by t43562 8mo ago
Code may have to compile but that's a lowish bar and since the AI is writing the tests it's obvious that they're going to pass. In all areas where there's less easy ways to judge output there is going to be corresponding
171.
by t43562 8mo ago
I agree because I'm trying to point out the the over-enthusiasts that if they really reached intelligence it has lots of consequences that they probably don't want. Hence they shouldn't be too eager to declare that the future
172.
by t43562 8mo ago
We can stop bothering with open source software completely. We can just generate anything we want directly into machine code without any libraries. ...and if they commit libel we can "put them in jail" since they cannot be conside
173.
by t43562 8mo ago
It is pointless to talk to the people earning big bucks anyhow but they're not the only important people around.
174.
by t43562 8mo ago
I don't know about this PR but I suggest that people have wasted so much time on sloppy generated PRs that they have had to decide to ignore them to have any time to deal with real people and real PRs that aren't slop.
175.
by t43562 8mo ago
Other agents can find and use it and present it as truth.
176.
by t43562 8mo ago
If we are to consider them truly intelligent then they have to have responsibility for what they do. If they're just probability machines then they're the responsibility of their owners. If they're children then their parent
177.
by t43562 8mo ago
One thing one can assume is that AI really is intelligent we should be able to put it in jail for misbehavior :-)
178.
by t43562 8mo ago
I think that a comparison with Engineering is not that helpful for software. Software has 0 construction cost but that it does have is extremely complicated behavior. Take a bridge for example: the use case is being able to walk or drive or
179.
by t43562 8mo ago
> "writing code" is one of the easiest parts of the job. The hard part is knowing what code needs to be written. I highly applaud this idea. IMO this is why big upfront design is so risky.
180.
by t43562 8mo ago
Big upfront designs are obviously based on big upfront knowledge which nobody has. When they turn out to be based on false assumptions of simplicity the fallout is that the whole thing can't go forward because of one of the details. Ev

More ›