And to your point: instructing a (non-deterministic) LLM declaratively ("get me to this end state") compounds the likelihood of going off the rails.

https://www.crypto101.io

The neural connections (or lack of them) have longer term comprehension-building implications.

It's talking about the Ada programming language and that its code was apparently stored not as plaintext but an intermediate representation (IR) that could then be transformed back into code.

So formatting was handled by tooling by the nature of the setup. Developers would each have their own custom settings for "pretty printing" the code.

The author isn't saying don't use code formatters. They're highlighting an unusual approach that the industry at large isn't aware of. Instead of getting rid of arguments about code style via formatters, you can get rid of them by saving code in an IR instead of plaintext.

Bob plays the role of a therapist, and when his client explains an issue she's having, his solution is, "STOP IT!"

> You shouldn't be so insecure.

Not assuming that there's any insecurity here, but psychological matters aren't "willed away". That's not how it works.

What would be your reaction to the numerous comments on this page where people are saying that they tried and failed to "discipline" themselves for years or decades, only to discover medication later and find that it instantly turned everything around for them?

Low ego wins.

1. Given: The quality of a codebase as a whole is greatly affected by its level of consistency + cohesiveness

2. Therefore: The best codebases are created by groups that either (1) internally have similar taste or (2) are comprised of low ego people willing to bend their will to the established conventions of the codebase.

Obviously, this comes with caveats. (Objectively bad patterns do exist.) But in general:

Low-ego → Following existing conventions → They become familiar → They seem simpler

Summarized: Anyone would be a fool not to prefer gas or coal, because their emissions are nearly equal.

One doesn't follow from the other, can you correct/elaborate?

Speed.

ChatGPT 5 Thinking is So. Much. Slower. than o4-mini and o4-mini-high. Like between 5 and 10 times slower. Am I the only one experiencing this? I understand they were "mini" models, but those were the current-gen thinking models available to Pro. Is GPT 5 Thinking supposed to be beefier and more effective? Because the output feels no better.

Can you elaborate? What is this referring to?

And it's all upside (your body feels better afterward) no downside. (Ok, it's more expensive.) Especially when combined with other sweet ingredients, e.g. a banana – equally if not more delicious.

Cognition: acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and the senses.

Hallucination: An experience involving the perception of something not present.

With those definitions in mind, hallucination can be defined as false-cognition that is not based in reality. It's not cognition because cognition grants knowledge based on truth and hallucination leads the subject to believe lies.

In other words, "humans are just really good at hallucination" rejects the notion that we're able to perceive actual reality with our senses.

Would you be willing to elaborate?

- After the wheel was invented, humanity has never stopped building vehicles with wheels.

- Since the printing press was created, humanity has never lost the ability to mass-copy and distribute information.

- Since airplanes were invented, humans have never been unable to achieve flight.

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to believe that humans as a whole will never lose the ability to read digital information in the future. Heck, I'd say it's the most likely outcome.

Humans learn from each other. Information "likes to spread". All of known history supports the idea that technology generally advances in one direction.

The concern is that the total votes happen to be the closest integers possible to come up with exactly those single-decimal percentages. Indicating that the total votes were derived from the percentages, not from an actual tally of votes.

It's HIGHLY improbable that out of 10,058,774 votes, the distribution between Maduro, Gonzalez, and "Other" would all yield percentages that are effectively 1-decimal percentages.

1. Engineers don't care about the health of the codebase and it becomes/stays a ball of mud, OR...

2. They do care, and end up refactoring/rewriting it in a way that just creates even MORE complexity.

But I think this is a false dichotomy. It just happens to be very difficult, and as much of an art as a science to keep huge codebases moving in the right direction.

I haven't worked at Google, but from what I've heard they have huge codebases, but they're not typically falling apart at the seams.