rootlocus

You can right click and uncheck "Lock the taskbar" and then drag it to the left side. Or am I misunderstanding your problem?

I'm on Windows 10 btw, no idea if it still works on 11.

I found that "Make no mistakes, or you go to jail" improves claude-code's performance by about 43%

TruthSocial is the largest distributor of propaganda and fake news. That's pretty hypocritic.

Sorry for being off-topic but I find it so refreshing that people can still engage in arguments in good faith, without resorting to personal attacks.

Thank you!

"Follow me on X"

Why... just why? Why do people keep insisting on using it?

> Tests are specifications: they define behavior, set boundaries, and keep the inevitable growth of complexity under control.

I set boundaries during design where I choose responsibilities, interfaces and names. Red Green Refactor is very useful for beginners who would otherwise define boundaries that are difficult to test and maintain.

I design components that are small and focused so their APIs are simple and unit tests are incredibly easy to define and implement, usually parametrized. Unit tests don't keep me "sane", they keep me sleeping well at night because designing doesn't drive me mad. They don't define how the "program" is supposed to work, they define how the unit is supposed to work. The smaller the unit the simpler the test. I hope you agree: simple is better than complex. And no, I don't subscribe to "you only need integration tests".

Otherwise, nice battery of ad hominems you managed to slip in: my understanding of quality software is lacking, my problem is my approach to engineering and I'm an immature developer. All that from "LLMs can automate most of the boring stuff, including unit tests with 100% coverage." because you can't fathom how someone can design quality software without TDD, and you can't steelman my argument (even though it's recommended in the guidelines [1]). I do review and correct the LLM output. I almost always ask it for specific test cases to be implemented. I also enjoy seeing most basic test cases and most edge cases covered. And no, I don't particularly enjoy writing factories, setups, and asserts. I'm pretty happy to review them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I feel like the distinction is equivalent to

    LLMs can make mistakes. Humans can't.

Humans can and do make mistakes all the time. LLMs can automate most of the boring stuff, including unit tests with 100% coverage. They can cover edge cases you ask them to and they can even come up with edge cases you may not have thought about. This leaves you to do the review.

I think think the underlying problem people have is they don't trust themselves to review code written by others as much as they trust themselves to implement the code from scratch. Realistically, a very small subset of developers do actual "engineering" to the level of NASA / aerospace. Most of us just have inflated egos.

I see no problem modelling the problem, defining the components, interfaces, APIs, data structures, algorithms and letting the LLM fill in the implementation and the testing. Well designed interfaces are easy to test anyway and you can tell at a glance if it covered the important cases. It can make mistakes, but so would I. I may overlook something when reviewing, but the same thing often happens when people work together. Personally I'd rather do architecture and review at a significantly improved speed than gloat I handcrafted each loop and branch as if that somehow makes the result safer or faster (exceptions apply, ymmv).

Oooo, I remember Garry Newman! I found his UI library GWEN (GUI Without Extravagant Nonsense) when I was still in uni and working on my game engine. It's been abandoned for 9 years now, nice to see he's still working on cool tech.

[1] https://github.com/garrynewman/GWEN

I assume the content isn't as important as the fact the object itself is the original. Original paper, original ink, original release date. The object itself comes from the original factory, survived through time etc. I would expect some tests will verify it uses the correct paper, has the signs of age, etc.

Even if you could duplicate it down to the molecule I would assume it wouldn't hold the same value since it doesn't have the same history. Assuming you'd want to sell it in good faith as a replica.

It also had the absolute worse monetization scheme in history with the general sentiment being they abused every dark pattern and made the experience horrible.

Presumably the "subject matter expert" will review the output of the LLM, just like a reviewer. I think it's disingenuous to assume that just because someone used AI they didn't look at or reviewed the output.

> Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied

Should be applied for what purpose? What's the purpose of the government and what's the purpose of a corporation? When the latter is strongly influencing the former, why is it difficult to entertain the idea that their purpose and interests align?

> Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?

There's a difference between seeking and weighing input, and simply passing along legislature proposals without even looking at it. This is a strawman.

> Yet this is a golden age by every measure.

This isn't guaranteed to improve or even remain forever. And it really depends where you look. Plenty of war, misery and suffering to go around. And even in safe countries the lack of education, healthcare, financial stability is causing enough stress that people start favoring authoritarian options. That's not a great sign for the future. Just because most of us are doing better than our ancestors, doesn't mean we're going in the right direction or that we're doing the best we can. No progress is achieved by being content with the status quo, and the present is pretty miserable for a lot of people. Should we wait until a terrible war wipes out half the planet before we consider maybe changing things?

But I think that's beside the point. The argument being discussed is whether corporate entities parabolically "are" the government.

I fail to see the point you're trying to make or the argumentative process by which you're trying to make it.

Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs. Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. And this is just the blatant tip of the iceberg the current administration is brazen enough to show publicly.

> absolutely baffling to you and which probably makes a hundred obvious counter-arguments pop up in your head.

I can probably find a hundred obvious examples of conflict of interests, quid-pro-quos, or otherwise pro-corporation anti-consumer for any administration in history. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the government is issuing gold cards with the president's face on them for multi-millionaires to bring their business.

I'd be glad to hear a few of those hundred obvious counter-arguments.

Indeed a world in which you can't tell truth from lies and proof from ai generated videos suits this administration perfectly. Masked men with no identification kidnap people off the streets and you can't tell if it's real or fake. No wonder the government loves openai. Just look at how happy they are to use it on truth social.

Actions speak to the character of a person. And some actions have long lasting consequences.

Or at least coherent.

> If the were released every other day, people who wanted to do them for 12 straight days could not.

If they instead waited 12 days, they could start with the 6 puzzles already released, and then have enough puzzles to solve once a day for the next 12 days.

You're not the first one to think that k9 is a good name for a kubernetes related technology https://k9scli.io

Funny enough, having close to zero experience with Rust and wanting to build an iced-rs application with Claude Code, I asked it to search github for large projects using iced-rs to use as a reference and Halloy ones one of the top 3.

Here's how Claude Code does this:

> Find all java files with more than 100 lines.

● I'll search for all Java files with more than 100 lines in the codebase.

● Bash(find . -name "*.java" -type f -exec wc -l {} + | awk '$1 > 100' | sort -nr)

...

● I found 5 Java files with more than 100 lines:

  1. File1.java - 315 lines
  2. File2.java - 156 lines
  3. File3.java - 154 lines
  4. File4.java - 130 lines
  5. File5.java - 117 lines

  The largest file is File1.java with 315 lines.

Or, if you want to count lines:

> How many lines don't start with `import` in File1.java?

● Bash(grep -cv "^import " ./File1.java) ⎿ 287

● There are 287 lines that don't start with import in File1.java.

Nobody asked anyone anything. It's a post with people sharing thoughts. You don't even know if the maintainer is the same person as the author. As far as feedback goes, if the comment gets enough upvotes it shows a significant number of people share the sentiment, and would be something for the maintainer to consider if he wants a broader audience. Nobody expects the maintainer to respond or care though.

But TS is not valid JS and nobody uses TS because they can write JS in a file with a different extension. You also get 0 benefit from running `tsc` on a JS file. You could argue that C is valid C++ so there's no reason to discern them either.

Then you should probably add kotlin and java together as well. They share the same purpose, use the same VM, usually live in the same project, have native compatibility, are used with the same frameworks, etc.

> Made the mistake of clicking the link instead of going directly to the site like I normally would (since I was mobile).

Does anyone know how this attack works? Is it a CSRF against npmjs.com?

Information, disinformation, what's the difference?

> The new version of NO FAKES requires almost every internet gatekeeper to create a system that will a) take down speech upon receipt of a notice; b) keep down any recurring instance—meaning, adopt inevitably overbroad replica filters on top of the already deeply flawed copyright filters; c) take down and filter tools that might have been used to make the image; and d) unmask the user who uploaded the material based on nothing more than the say so of person who was allegedly “replicated.”

Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement.

> Most of my open source work followed Unix philosophy, so the packages did one thing at a time. There was 350+ of them.

The man page for a unix binary is at least two orders of magnitude larger. At some point, the "Unix philosophy" doesn't make sense anymore. I mean, it couldn't even rightpad.

You are now fine tuning their models, and you pay them money to do it.

I thought so too, but if you consider they removed the "from", "to", "subject" and top actions panels, the original had less content space. On the screenshot, the original had 152px of content height and the new one has 232px, ~ 150% of the old one. The one on the right shows a picture that's also content. I assume they redesigned the email thread so the box above the current email is the mail the person is responding to, with the pictures attached.

Have you tried AoT compilation with graalvm?