guccihat

Link should be updated to the correct article:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy7vrd8k4eo

The technical proposal behind this legislation is to enforce on-device AI analysis of all chat communication so your device can notify authorities.

This mass surveillance proposal is so dystopian and broken, I’m genuinely ashamed to be an EU citizen.

Cool demo. A minor nitpick is that the code (and the article) forgets to handle the special case of a point inside the cube that happens to be exactly (0,0,0). This will result in a divide by zero when the vector is normalized.

The article concludes that the overall translation score of Llama 4 is below that of Llama 3.3. However, the included table shows that Llama 4 scores better on all subcategories included in the test - coherence, idiomaticity and accuracy.

Something does not add up. The conclusion just states "...downgrade from LLama 3.3 in every respect" without further explanation.

> This title is misleading though - where it tries to state that DeepSeek only focuses on research and not revenue.

IMO, the title is quite accurate and supported by the content of the article. The team is prioritizing AI research at the expense of short term profit.

If the title was "DeepSeek is solely a research effort" you would have a case.

TL;DR - The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses different employment categories for programmers and software developers. While the number of programmers has seen a steady decline since 2000, the number of software developers has seen a steady increase.

I use AI everyday for work, mostly models from OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepSeek. In my experience none of them completely dominate the others. You seem to disagree strongly but then just state your argument, which model or company do you think is the clear leader currently and why?

The AI race is super close and interesting at the moment in my opinion.

Currently, it feels like many of the frontier models have reached approximately the same level of 'intelligence' and capability. No one is leaps ahead of the rest. Microsoft probably figured this is a good time to reconsider their AI strategy.

> The Exercism problems have proven to be very effective at measuring an LLM's ability to modify existing code

The Aider Polyglot website also states that the benchmark " ...asks the LLM to edit source files to complete 225 coding exercises".

However, when looking at the actual tests [0], it is not about editing code bases, it's rather just solving simple programming exercies? What am I missing?

[0] https://github.com/Aider-AI/polyglot-benchmark

It is "just" the domestic intelligence agency ordering Apple to backdoor their own system be able to supply data for lawful interception. As I read the article, it's not a UK backdoor in the sense they can roam around in every users data. The domestic agencies still need to follow the rules of lawful interception, namely they need a warrant, and it is targeted at UK nationals only. At least that is how I read the article.

When the AI dust settles, I wonder who will be left standing among the groups of developers, testers, scrum masters, project leaders, department managers, compliance officers, and all the other roles in IT.

It seems the general sentiment is that developers are in danger of being replaced entirely. I may be biased, but it seems not to be the most likely outcome in the long term. I can't imagine how such companies will be competitive against developers who replace their boss with an AI.

I would say most of the examples in TFA are deployment diagrams, not (software) component diagrams. For all the flaws of UML, at least it taught us to be quite specific in which aspect of the system we are currently modelling.

I see what you mean now, you are right. My only intention was to demonstrate that a TS solution is possible - one that does not rely on the type system but one that still observes all the constraints listed. I think this was questioned by some in the thread (but not you).

The constraint only states not to use hard coded matrices as I read it. Here is a version with number addition removed, this works fully on strings.

  function isDivisibleByThree(num) {
    let modulo, mod3 = "012012012012";
    for (const digit of num) {
        [modulo] = mod3.slice(modulo).slice(digit);
    }
    return modulo === "0";
  }

Since I read the constraint to allow for single digit numeric values*, I guess they are looking for a solution similar to:

  function isDivisibleByThree(num: string): boolean {
      let mod3 = "012012012012";
      let modulo = "0";
      for (const digit of num) {
          modulo = mod3[Number(digit) + Number(modulo)];
      }
      return modulo === "0";
  }

If adding two single digit numbers is also prohibited it can be implemented with a lookup and keep everything in string representation.

"The programmer can use whatever representation they see fit with the only restriction being that it could only contain letters, numbers and symbols that could be typed with a single stroke"

I think the interviewers were looking for the key insight that a number is divisible by 3 iff the sum of the individual digits is divisible by 3. That is easy to verify, even constrained to using single digit data types. To be clear, I am not saying this was a great interview question and I agree the solution OP came up with is impressive.

It was the whole point of the exercise if I read the article correct

"While the base algorithm is very simple, the point of the exercise is that the interviewer will add new rules to test how you update the code while keeping it readable and maintainable."

I will go against the grain and say I do not consider OPs fizzbuzz solution to score particular well on readability or maintainability. And these were the only two stated core requirements.

The solution is clever and demonstrates solid knowledge of TS. However, in my experience getting too clever with the type system is not always a good idea for ordinary application code maintained by a team of average TS developers.

"The study found that commuters who turn on the recirculation are exposed to around 80 percent less harmful particles than those who open their car windows."

Doesn't that mean they have 5 times more exposure, not 80% more?