didroe

I'd really like something that works more like pair programming. Where you share an editor session with the AI, and it's much more interactive. eg. It says "I'm thinking about doing X here, what do you think?". Then you give a response and it continues. Or you can see it doing something silly and immediately stop it and correct something either with a prompt or by manually editing yourself, before letting it rip again. Or just ask it "why are you doing it that way?". Maybe with some control over the speed it's going, for when you feel confident about what it's doing.

Claude has made some positive changes over time where it asks you more when there are different approaches it can take. But I feel like I'm not being brought along with my mental model as much as I would like. A lot of the time it spits out a whole pile of code and then I have to go and build up the mental model after the fact, and correct a lot of what it's done.

The current approach is good a lot of the time though, when you're not really changing anything architectural and just want it to bash out code while you do somehthing else.

There's a good reason we use jargon in professions, or more constrained and less ambiguous languages for maths/coding

How does Reinforcement Learning force the weights to be logically consistent? Isn't it just about training using a coarser/more-fuzzy granularity of fitness?

More generally, is it really solving the task if it's given a large number of attempts and an oracle to say whether it's correct? Humans can answer the questions in one shot and self-check the answer, whereas this is like trial and error with an external expert who tells you to try again.

They're probably having to audit everything, invest a lot of effort in additional hardening, and re-architect things to try and minimise the impact of any future attack. And via some bureaucratic organisational structure/outsourcing contract.

Most kettles now have a base with an integrated cable though, so the name doesn't really correspond with the cable's most common usage any more.

Doesn't lazy evaluation mean memory/complexity issues could manifest far away from the problematic code?

We'll take another look at the rules with this in mind. If you are able to share the (rough) approach you take to build the cookie string it would help us to ensure we're covering the specific case(s) you have.

1. Not yet but we are exploring ways to support that

2. The analysis part is sound. False +ves (mainly) come from limitations with what you can specify in the rule language. We're working on this however.

3. We don't make that distinction in the rules language currently. Sensitive data detection (which is built-in) is effectively treated as a source. But we need to allow rules to specify sources. I don't think the limitation matters to finding issues, but more to how well they are reported (you effectively only get the sinks reported at the moment).

4. We plan to add other languages but are mindful of the balance of depth vs breadth of support. Is there a particular language you'd like to see support for?

5. There is no support for these currently unfortunately.

6. As it's intra-procedural, we take quite a basic approach to these (with some special cases in the engine). In terms of dataflow, we treat unknown function calls as identity functions (assume the output is somehow influenced by all the inputs). Obviously this is not ideal in terms of false +ves, but we need to work on inter-procedural support first to do a good job of this. In terms of type analysis, we will try to infer unknown types locally from field/property access.

It's unfortunately also pretty much pointless. Digital assets aren't scarce, and physical assets mean leaving the system and losing the properties of it.

- they have special control flow that interacts with the method call or surrounding function. ie. calling `break` in `something` can early return from `someMethod`, or calling `return` will return from the function containing the `someMethod` call (blocks use `next` to return from them)

- due to using separate syntax / being a separate language construct, there is far better ergonomics in the presence of vargs or default values

Take this contrived example for instance:

  def some_method(a = 42)
      b = yield
      puts "Hey #{a} #{b}"
  end

  some_method do
    break
  end

  const breakSomeMethod = {}; // Could alternatively use an exception

  function someMethod(one, two) {
    var f, a;
    if (typeof one == 'function') {
      f = one;
      a = 42;
    } else {
      a = one;
      f = two;
    }

    var b = f();
    if (b === breakSomeMethod) {
      return;
    }

    console.log(`Hey ${a} ${b}`)
  }

  someMethod(() => breakSomeMethod);

It's because regulation says only certain institutions are allowed to perform certain transactions, and have to perform certain checks, etc. I'm not saying there aren't inefficiencies that aren't directly related to regulation, eg. monopolistic behaviours. But that's the side-effect/price you pay for some kind of oversight. There is of course lots of room for improvement in the systems/regulation we have.

When you look at the history of where the regulations came from, it's usually in response to a major crisis. Humans tend to be reactionary, especially the ones in positions of power when they're enacting laws that limit their paymasters.

> The behaviour of said percentage-takers over the last century haven't exactly made regulation the saviour of the common citizenry either.

Look at the most recent major economic crisis of 2008. The main reason it was so devastating was due to rolling back regulation from previous crises, along with "innovative" financial products that regulators had turned a blind eye to. What do you think would have happened to business lending (ie. jobs) and the stock market (ie. people's pensions) if there had been zero regulation and no ability to inject liquidity into the system?

> Coins going up in value just because they are scarce or first movers, is just like Pets.com being valuable because they have a good domain name.

Isn't scarcity baked in to Bitcoin? Any investments made using it will have to return more than the deflation / speculative-hoarding rate, which means useful things won't get funded.

> “the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.”

- Plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy

> In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Truman’s political advisers overruled the military in determining how the end of the war with Japan would be approached.

> "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan"

- Truman's chief of staff

> “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

- Commanding general of the US Army Air Forces

> “[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia’s postwar behavior…[and thought] that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”

- Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, talking about Secretary of State James Byrnes

It doesn't seem like dropping the bombs served any military purpose.

I have a really low expectation of it being able to provide price stability.

A currency's supply needs to increase/decrease in response to what's circulating at this moment in time. If the overall supply is increasing but everybody is squirrelling it away or deleveraging debt positions, then you're still going to have deflationary effects. Case in point, roughly 20% of USD was minted in the last year or so, with pretty much no inflation. Similarly with something like Bitcoin, if some event were to trigger a spending/selling spree (or a debt bubble were to form) then you would have inflationary effects.

What's needed is coordination to increase/decrease the supply as needed. That could be done with some kind of decentralised voting system. But I'm not sure it could react fast enough in a crisis, or be able to direct the action to the right parts of an economy to avoid the kind of damage that takes decades to undo.

If he wasn't like that, he might not have done some of the worthwhile things he's done. I definitely wouldn't take anything he says at face value, but I think there's value in him being like that.

I don't really see that as a dissociative practice, but more as the prerequisite for being able to start on the long term journey of challenging and changing your thought patterns.

The answer lies in who the governments are that are saying that. They're the advanced economies which are well developed and have good regulatory systems, the ones that have little to no risk of hyperinflation. And, for them, deflation is worse than some (non-hyper) inflation. It's also much harder to get out of, Japan is still sort of stuck 20-30yrs later despite taking more and more extreme measures.

To circle back to the parent comment topic, ie. people think printing money always causes inflation: You mention Japan. They have printed so much that their central bank owns about 45% of the national debt. And they still have no inflation.

>we keep having mysterious debt-fueled collapses.

I don't think they're that mysterious. Most seem to be caused by human irrationality / group-think (bubbles), in combination with complex financial instruments that magnify the effects of a burst (ie. unwinding of massive leverage).

Can you not use Seccomp for that?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?year_...