tuyiown

The most ridiculous thing is that idealistic open-source maintainers are still doing it, while this is being an established status quo for at least 30 years. Or maybe they have their incentive, and, while I don't find it palatable too, large corporations understands that. What's _your_ incentive in having such strong opinions about that ?

If can put properly engineered intent in the prompt that is verifiable, it works wonders. Anything that can defaults to the llm doing its way, you're right, it just can't converge to good, not with proper constraints.

This can be a result of unexpected and costly if not worse, surprises.

Pin pointing the issue is way more than valuable than code. If you wrote a fix, you have analyzed the bug. The value is there, not in the fix. Sharing your fine analysis is the maximized contribution. Code is an optional bonus at most.

Nobody talked about anything out of neurons. The question is still open.

    git push . <branch1>:<branch2>
    git pull . <branch2>:<branch1>

The only way to avoid getting furious about this is to deeply understand that you can't require people to be properly self-aware, especially because many many people that checks the expert boxes are very incompetent or inadequate, so they when the come up with their half bake ideas, they delegate the other to deliver contrarian proofs. It's exhausting.

I'm pretty sure any linguist will agree with this definition. All language normalisation is an afterthought.

The fact that this is lost as a common knowledge whereas shiny examples arises regularly is very telling.

But it is not liked in business because reproducing it requires competence in the industry, and finance deep pockets don’t believe in competence anymore.

My comments being downvoted, pretty rare lately, were about never discussed but legitimate points about AI that I validated IRL. I have no resonance about the way AI is discussed on HN and IRL, to the point that I can't rule out more or less subtle manipulation on the discussions.

_Everything_ flows in one direction, all particles goes in a straight line from their self reference, fields "modifying direction" is just an observer point of view. The separation of time and space is purely a perception matter.

A gross comparison would be to compare with objects perception, it only exists because our mind can leverage it for a strong evolutional advantage (I'm not only speaking of humans here).

It might seem obscure, but syscalls to get access to kernel requires a tight integration on compilation and linking. So this is their approach and this is where the compatibility really means something : since you can cross compile on another machine, they don't need the full toolchain right away. Just compile your code on a linux machine, and run it there. You're at the mercy of all missing kernel API implementations, but it looks like a very good strategy if you aim is to code a kernel, as you only have to focus on actual syscalls implementation without getting distracted by toolchain.