jameson

It's somewhat deceiving practice IMO although it could simply be my insecurity.

Along with the empty page, it says "Your watch history is off" in bold then says "... change your setting ... to get the latest video tailored to you"

It sounds as if I'm missing out on latest videos which, technically true, but I wonder if that wording is necessary. It could've just said "Update the settings here to get recommendations". But of course for-profit companies need to make profit :)

Trust matters in business because it provides a sense of predictability

I suggest turning off recommendation if you dislike what they suggest

My YT landing page is completely blank and need to go "subscription" tab to see newly uploaded vids from the ones I subscribe to

It's quite nice not having to view all kinds of random stuff YT wants me to see

Other governments do, but not as much as China does.

Healthcare in South Korea for example is government managed and it is one of the best healthcare in the world.

I believe utility companies are also government owned.

Also some of the well known companies now were practically government owned during the Park dictatorship in the 70s.

I wouldn't use the term "Flourish" as what you hear and see is strictly controlled

Some other costs that may incur:

- Pool

- HOA

- HOA (if the community belong to larger community association that maintains things like park)

Summerlin area in Las Vegas for example have summerlin association you pay HOA to in addition to your residential HOA.

> Have you observed Bun have more segfaults, OOMs, etc, since the Rust rewrite? Have you noticed more security vulnerabilities? Have you seen more bugs? (Of course you haven't, the rewrite hasn't even landed yet.)

Your argument could go other way too. Why haven't they landed if they're so confident with the change?

The idea is similar to maintaining on-prem vs cloud

Cloud is optimized for development velocity but its nature of high margin business eventually makes on-prem more promising

It could be too late but it might be worth looking into tax saving if you have a business. Depreciation of asset is a loss and may deduct your income. (I'm NOT a tax expert)

Right, also Anthropic has been having difficult time getting more GPUs

Wow... Just wow...

Perhaps Github, by default, should add its own .gitignore that ignores files with certain keyword and have it only allowed to override by repo setting.

I've seen too many incidents when an engineer checks in a plaintext password to a repo

Security is often overlooked internally and seen as source of friction. I worked at a popular US social media firm and it wasn't hard to get a permission that allows me to delete the entire company's dataset. Often arguments around "I'm working on org-level initiative and I need to get permission to get it done" would easily get me the permission.

What was the reason GCP took down a startup previously?

It's best for privacy not to do this in the first place because:

- Watermarks are optional by AI provider so bad actors will circumvent by using another provider

- GH project proves watermarks can be removed

Given these, trying to ensure "truth" is a futile effort unfortunately, and watermarking only gives companies advantage to violate privacy

Why can't Claude Code generate effective harness for us by inspecting the code base?

I tried defining CLAUDE.md (or AGENTS.md), skills, plugins, but I'm not getting the effectiveness others claim to be. LSP plugin for example, CC doesn't to use LSP's symbol renaming and edits file one by one slowly, or it does not invoke the skill when I explicitly ask to remember to invoke when prompt contains a specific clue.

Am I using it wrong? Is there a robust example I can copy the harness?

> many startups

which startups? I'm genuinely curious

Unlikely to happen when H1B program benefit corporate and they run super PACs

Any policies to help the people are labeled as "socialist" nowadays

I have a similar sentiment. Subject that makes the claim that AI writing code is fast is going to matter a lot because some programmers heavily use "LSPs, Linters and Auto-completes", key bindings, snippets, CLI commands, etc to speed up writing code

There's something innate about AI generated contents that my instincts somehow knows these aren't creations by humans.

I can't seem to state exact properties but they are hollow, out-of-norm, or as the author describes it -- bullshit

Do Github publish post-mortems?

Incidents spiked recently and I wonder what's repeatedly causing the issue.

Mistakes (preventable or not) can happen, but repeated failures is a systematic issue.

reminds me of rob pike mentioning gofmt's style is "no one's favorite"

Is there a global config to exclude all non-human generated contents in Spotify?

Why doest the browser even allow it?

Runtime of extensions should be blackbox to a website IMO

I have a similar sentiment unfortunately. I briefly thought about ways to force them to stop but all led to some sort of negative impact on privacy/freedom such as identify verification

LLMs are not smart as the LLM vendors claimed to be.

If they are, we wouldn't be having this conversation because they will be fully autonomous

People who blindly submits LLM generated code or do not cite its usage really need to stop doing it

"teal" is the name for color "Moderate bluish green"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teal

Apologies for my ignorance but how can you know the quality of the context?

> "In combination with other prompt changes, it hurt coding quality, and was reverted on April 20"

Do researchers know correlation between various aspects of a prompt and the response?

LLM, to me at least, appears to be a wildly random function that it's difficult to rely on. Traditional systems have structured inputs and outputs, and we can know how a system returned the output. This doesn't appear to be the case for LLM where inputs and outputs are any texts.

Anecdotally, I had a difficult time working with open source models at a social media firm, and something as simple as wrapping the example of JSON structure with ```, adding a newline or wording I used wildly changed accuracy.

What competitive advantage does OpenAI/Anthropic has when companies like Qwen/Minimax/etc are open sourcing models that shows similar (yet below than OpenAI/Anthropic) benchmark results?

Also, the token prices of these open source models are at a fraction of Anthropic's Opus 4.6[1]

[1]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/#pricing

How should one compare benchmark results? For example, SWE-bench Pro improved ~11% compared with Opus 4.6. Should one interpret it as 4.7 is able to solve more difficult problems? or 11% less hallucinations?

How should one compare benchmark results?

For example, SWE-bench Pro improved ~11% compared with Opus 4.6. Should one interpret it as 4.7 is able to solve more difficult problems? or 11% less hallucinations?