lesam

I'm confused how you find the data again in this cache? It seems like you're randomly salting your cache keys, so I don't understand how subsequent requests find cached data.

Note that I believe this comment was substantially edited after I replied.

Do you have data for this? The data I've seen in the past is that landlords are not in aggregate able to pass on mortgage rate increases as rent increases, possibly because their tenants are already squeezed to the limit and there is simply no more money to be had. So when mortgage rates go up rents stay roughly constant and property values go down.

If the phone injures or defrauds you, does it have to make restitution? If so, how?

'Transacting' requires not only identity but accountability, a completely controlled-by-you phone cannot meaningfully transact separately from you.

You would sell the development for as much as you can get, regardless of tax. The people buying from you aren't going to pay you more just because the government raised your taxes.

So you want the probability that the answer is correct, but Jev is providing the probability that its answer is optimal?

Why do you need jj for this? I'd usually make incremental commits with git, and I'm wondering how jj levels it up.

It's really useful to have a chat app that is gatekept behind a 20k/year+ subscription. It's a particularly useful signal if someone is offering you a million+ dollar asset for sale.

Early in my career, I had to babysit our FX quoting app through the July 2015 leap second.

And some things do trade 24/7 (though I wish they wouldn't, one auction per minute during US east coast business hours would be totally sufficient for most US markets).

Until you work in financial markets and you want to measure latency vs a bunch of other servers you don't own, all of whom pick different smears (and some of whom aren't sure in advance which smears).

Assuming your labour contribution to these agents is 'minimal':

Why would you own them, instead of some well capitalized billionaire?

To the extent that you do have capital, why do you assume that your 'minimal direction and guidance' would outcompete a full time specialist working for that billionaire?

'can damage' means 'sometimes causal'.

If there's no causal link, they should say 'associated with' or 'correlated with'.

Poetic that the most recent update is 6 months ago, a one line change adding a 'Lifecycle: Active' emoji to the Readme.

I'm pretty skeptical of the market argument - reading the linked article, it seems low granularity subsidizes market makers when there are many small orders (which often get worse prices than they would otherwise) and this subsidy allows market makers to be deeper, which subsidizes large orders. Which is a difference, but not an unalloyed good.

Surely price competition is more economically valuable than the queue position game, which is measured in economically meaningless nanoseconds.

'tech' in speed running is a reference to "technique" rather than "technology". https://glossary.infil.net/?t=Tech

Why would you design a hiring process that scores unprofessional people (by your own definition) higher than professional ones?

If you run an interview process where candidates who take 6-8 hours and claim to have taken 4 hours score highest, those are the candidates you will hire.

This is capitalism working as intended. Only the best run airlines can survive, and investors are collectively subsidizing air travel for non-investors.

I think AST aware code reading is criminally underused by agents - you don't need a header file if you can see a listing of all the functions in a library.

Similarly, I don't read the whole file a function is in while editing it in an IDE, why should a coding agent get the whole file polluting its context by default?

Except this isn't 'an app from a spec', it's the potemkin village of an app whose goal is to get ad impressions and a credit card number.

When your bridge falls down, you don't call an incident and ask your engineer to fix it, you sue them.

In software there's a lot more emphasis on post-hoc fixes rather than up front validation, in my experience.

I think Adams was prescient, since in his story the all powerful computer reaches the answer '42' via incorrect arithmetic.

This is interesting, but doesn't have to be correct.

If Blockbuster had kept pouring money into the new service, maybe it would have lost it all - I see no reason to think Blockbuster's movie rental franchise business would have 'transferrable skills' to allow it to succeed at streaming.

If it had been trying to pivot into a pizza delivery business (perhaps more transferable, in terms of locating franchises etc) would Icahn still have been 'killing' it?

My point is, maybe it was already dead and Icahn just prevented it from wasting a lot of money on the way down the drain.

If it's lasted 10 years and someone is still using it after all that time, that seems like a pretty good signal there's a lot of value in the 'garbage'?

I've seen a lot of 'fixes' for 10 year old 'garbage' that turned out to be regressions for important use cases that the author of the 'fix' wasn't aware of.

If markets were regulated to trade in coordinated 1s auctions, instead of nanosecond precision first-come-first-served matching of orders, markets would function just as well without needing a ton of what the HFT crowd does. It's a massive waste of brilliant minds.

That seems like a legal question - if the model weights contain an encoded copy of the copyrighted material, is that a 'copy' for the purpose of copyright law?

Before photography, we knew something was truthful because someone trustworthy vouched for it.

Now that photos and videos can be faked, we'll have to go back to the older system.

Depends. When millions are on the line between companies, people are surprisingly willing to take a hand-created excel file as 'proof'. For example: https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/tricolors-excel-g...

If there’s anything I would want to run to verify, I ask the author to add a unit test. Generally, the existing CI test + new tests in the PR having run successfully is enough. I might pull and run it if I am not sure whether a particular edge case is handled.

Reviewers wanting to pull and run many PRs makes me think your automated tests need improvement.

In fact ‘computer’ used to be a job description: a person who computes.