SOLAR_FIELDS

Did they ever have meaning? It's always been a nebulous feels term

The principle of defense in depth is built around the idea that with enough time, any system can likely be compromised, but the chance of compromising the system before being detected in your attempts to do so is lower the more safeguards you put into place

It should be possible to wire another event dispatcher to ARC instead of relying on actions webhooks. That’s the only part that is a true dependency, it should be possible to basically decouple ARC

Set of fat buildkit instances per build shape served on a spot instances autoscaled down to 0 with KEDA and Karpenter is pretty close to as optimal of a setup as one can get

Ive been spending a lot of time recently across all my projects optimizing ci because with this latest wave of models I can confidently make a lot more changes faster, and even if the pipelines are kinda optimized (I have rules like every pipeline fails if it exceeds 12 minute wall clock) the sheer amount of changes hitting ci is overloading it

Unless you are dealing with data at true scale, and not many people are, often the imperfections are hidden because they run fast, even if they are quadratic. I'm more referring to being actually forced to sit down and write out your own algorithm in a novel way.

Yes, during my BigCorp tenure I had to think about complexity all the time, but 99 times out of 100 there was an off the shelf tool available for my specific data structure and I didn't have to think about the algorithm at all beyond "oh there's a library that solves this for my specific data structure, and it's O(N)log n that will be fast enough". Whereas so much attention in interviewing traditionally was based on these "write a bubble sort algorithm from scratch" type questions which your average engineer basically never has to do on the job unless they are operating in a very high performance/scaling type of role.

I worked at bigcorp for half a decade before all of the LLM stuff and there was exactly one time I really had to give a shit about algorithmic complexity in that entire tenure. Obviously some developers needed to care more than others, but the vast, vast majority of work and roles just didn’t really need to care about this. 9 times out of 10 you’re using the off the shelf library that already has the optimized bubble sort of whatever for your job

I’ve been using it on iOS since it’s near inception and I can report that it is much more stable now than it was since its original release. I tried to live on the desktop browser, however, and eventually had to declare it unusable and switch back to Firefox. Mostly around things like 1Password and similar extensions being pretty broken in the Orion desktop browser.

Any criticism of the reproduction of the paper’s methodology should go right back to the original author, because the original author of the paper did not adequately document the methodology used. Then when asked directly to provide the methodology, the authors did not provide the methodology.

A cornerstone of valid science is reproducibility. Even if the original author’s methodology is sound, we cannot know because we cannot reproduce it, ergo, it’s basically bunk science.

When we take out all of the “both sides” political motivations driving a lot of the discussion in this thread, the glaring lack of scientific rigor falls squarely on the original authors, regardless of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it’s the responsibility of the original authors to provide that evidence, not the people providing the takedown.

Early on their software was like this, the original ChatGPT desktop app was basically unusable and full of memory leaks that would tank the software. They’ve long since fixed that though

Yeah this the thing that grinds my gears about Apple too. These fools will argue in court out of one side of their mouth that the cut is used to police the store etc and do reviews then out of the other side of their mouth they just don’t do it or give the most mediocre half assed attempts and collect the revenue. Which is it? You shouldn’t be able to charge people and not provide the service your charging them for

The big tell for me is assuming the reader has context straight out the gate. "What is automatic and what depends on the agent" assumes the reader, like the LLM at the time it wrote that sentence, has all of this pre-context available. That sentence makes more sense as an h3 header further down in some detailed list where the human has all of the knowledge of how the system works. Whereas a human obviously does not, so they lead with the important context of why you give a shit

I finally quit because of COVID. I got long COVID so bad and my lungs were so messed up that every time I tried to smoke it was a horrible experience. 6 months later when I finally felt good enough to try again the desire was pretty much gone. I genuinely tried to re addict myself and couldn’t do it

The cravings do go away entirely eventually. It took me probably 2-3 years after I quit before the random cravings stopped, I used to want make the smoking motion with my hand and that finally went away as well. It’s a fairly linear drop off I think, you just get them with less and less frequency as time goes on.

If a well funded incumbent with a much better model can just crush you instantly because you don't have access to it, is it really an opportunity?

I started using Pi with Astra on a whim after really enjoying Astra and reading somewhere that you get close to identical results as with the codex harness but for a significant hunk less token usage.

Coming from mostly using Claude models, the terse factual statements coming from Astra via the Pi harness are a breath of fresh air over having to wade through the flowery verbose nonsense that Claude constantly outputs

I do love how the software world has the caricature of a comic book villain in Larry Ellison

If someone proposes the right thing for selfish reasons, do we call that bad? Or do we call it proper incentive alignment?

In the course of my work I deal with organizations who sell cars out of impound lots. There is a whole capitalistic recycling industry of buying junked cars and reassembling them into functioning vehicles again.

Interestingly, a fair portion of junked cars get shipped overseas where the labor is very, very low cost and high tech, cheap labor chop shops in places like India or in some countries in Africa will have highly skilled workers basically cut out crumple zones and restore completely totaled vehicles into new looking cars and turn around and sell them. This would never be viable here in the States because of the labor cost, but when you are paying someone $1 USD a day to do highly skilled and technical labor like this it becomes very viable.

Another popular tactic where I live in Texas is to steal a car and drive it south of the border and strip it. Then buy a junked car same make and model with a clean VIN. Then ship that clean VIN second car south of the border as well and rebuild it with the stolen parts and ship it back over for resale.

My favorite quote from the article:

> So he calls Amanda Seyfried, who sits and watches the scene we’ve just seen of Holmes sitting and watching Seyfried portray her.

This is so very Nathan Fielder. Perfect encapsulation of his unique brand of humor. Seyfried portrays Holmes, giving her interpretation of Holmes. Holmes watches the portrayal, giving her interpretation of Seyfried's interpretation. Seyfried watches Holmes' interpretation of Seyfried's interpretation of Holmes.

This vibe is basically the entire theme of The Rehearsal. It's an exercise in how many Matryoshka dolls we can un-nest in our meta exploration of the topic. Keep zooming out and re-view yourself in the scene you just played which is a super interesting way to discover things about yourself and others

$5 wrench already in play, US citizen was detained at the border recently for simply wiping their phone

The thing that people always miss about this takeaway is that while it is a truism, most data is actually inherently relational. Even in your example given, the individual components that are made to assemble that document are better represented as relational datastores

Nowadays all providers are, or can be somewhat easily, just use Upjet to convert a Terraform provider. They walked away from the custom provider maintenance model awhile back due to its lack of scaling potential and loss of network effects from Terraform being the de-jure framework for infrastructure API's

I will say that yes, quite a few of the providers are half assed and have bugs. Mostly around how reconciliation works, but also gaps in the provider in how it writes fields due to some Terraform idiosyncracy. I often end up having to ignore various fields in the yaml to prevent drift. But now you can wrap your own without too much effort.

HCL itself definitely footguns you into it, it's perverse, because it's intended to be a mere configuration DSL and yet it has since its inception been square pegged into a round hole to do imperative language construct things that it was never designed for. Which is why you get insane practices like "never use an array to iterate over infrastructure in a loop, because removing an element forces a recreation of every resource after that loop because the position of the element in the array shifted to the left". These sort things are completely logical things you would do in a not insane framework (who doesn't use an array to loop over things in a normal software language?), but are a well-known landmine with HCL and Terraform.

You could say it was a mistake to use a language like HCL for Terraform and I would agree. It's a half baked idea that became production way too fast. Reminds me of Javascript.

Statistically, if it was LLM generated, is it actually more bug dense than human generated code was before this stuff all came out?

This weird take of “an LLM made it, it must be slop and buggy” ignores the reality of how almost all software written by humans was also quite shit before LLM’s came along

Double wordplay, not bad. Gives “Descartes before the horse” triple entendre vibes

“Journey” is an interesting way to frame purposefully creating an incomprehensible maze to force end users to walk through the entire warehouse. One of the worse “clever” design philosophies I’ve seen, it’s actively user hostile

I think there are two separate concerns here. The idea that long lived secrets survive in plaintext on a disk somewhere is a bad idea that should go away, but also tangential to that people have to have good hygiene around not printing evil things to logs. Latter is a lot harder to catch imo, and is a separate problem

There’s some rather infamous examples I’ve seen recently of people unpacking grocery store bins at farmers markets. There is no provenance around the origin of the goods in most markets, more common of a problem than people might think.

In Central Texas when peaches are in season people set up roadside stalls, but there’s no guarantee you are getting an actual local grown peach instead of whatever was on the shelf at the grocery store that day

I agree, we have single stream where I live and just understanding the logistics of how single stream works it’s easy to see that single stream leads to a large portion of recycling material simply being discarded because of the reality of sorting

Europeans seemed to manage to figure the problem out. It’s a cultural problem, not a scientific one. Because it requires gen pop to accept some sort of civic responsibility to do it properly, something Europeans have much more inkling to do