No thank you

They were using AWS, so I logged in the account to add a few more machines. Right there, in front of my eyes, were the signs of an adversarial, abusive relationship.

The UI to fire up a new machine did not show me the price. I had to look up the price in another table that did not have the specs.

I had to have the two tables open, cross check the specs and price.

If I had learned one thing from my past life was that if you see the signs of an abusive relationship, you have the option to walk out, and you don't, all that follows is your own fault.

Created a DigitalOcean account, moved everything over. Set up our CI/CDs to deploy there, and spent the next two months on the product, launching one month earlier than promised.

Some years before that I saw a video online where a person digs a hole near a river and puts a pipe connecting the river and the hole. The fishes push themselves hard in the pipe to get to their trap. Choosing the path of least resistance, and never backing off from a mistake: recipes to end up like those fishes. The video left a big impression on me.

They both use the parent's hash together with the contents of the block/changes in the commit to compute hash of the current block/commit.

Git supports many parallel branches, while Blockchain uses decentralized consensus mechanisms to keep the entire network in agreement and resolve branches as soon as possible. So yes, the mathematical problems in the two are different, but the data structure is very similar.

Source: my last job was creating developer toolsuits for Blockchain.

I totally agree to your point, and want to mention that the reverse is *also* important. Using just "intention", but these apply to emotions, etc

A lot of our interaction with AI is under an intention. That's what directs the interaction, and it's interpreted according to its alignment to the intention.

Then it's important to remember that our current (publicly known) implementation of AI does not have an explicit intention mechanism. An appearance of intention can emerge out of the statistical choices, and the usual alignment creates the association of the behavior with intention, not much different from how we learn to imagine existence of a "force" that pulls things down well before we learn physics and formalize that imagination in one of the several ways.

This appearance helps reduce the cognitive load when interpreting interactions, but can be misleading as well, and I've seen people attribute intention to AI output in some situations where simple presence of some information confused the LLM into a path. Can't share the exact examples (from work), but imagine that presence of an Italian food in a story leads the LLM to assume this happens in Italy, while there are important signs for a different place. The LLM does not automatically explore both possibilities, unless asked. It chooses one (Italy in this case), and moves on. A user no familiar with "Attention" interprets based on non-existent intentions on the LLM.

I found it useful to just tell them: the LLM does not have an intention. It just throws dice, but the system is made in a way that these dice throws are likely to generate useful output.

What would using base 12 in our natural language mean? Number names needed to be based on 12, not 10. Thirteen, twenty-seven, our numbers have base 10 embedded in their naming.

Battery life? Should they share all possible config combinations? Should they share the most power-saving setting (and then be blamed for sharing numbers that almost no one gets to reproduce?)

As a Linux user on an AMD FW my battery life is good enough (7ish hours of work), and I never felt I need to tune it further from the OOB Fedora Kinoite.

Your FW's Keyboard breaks? Original price you paid, bonus: you can just buy the newest model.

You want to upgrade anything in your MBP? "You know, with how thin, lightweight and fast they are, it's physically impossible to make them user-serviceable"

On the FW? They gave you the one tool you needed when you purchased your laptop.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47822483

The machine I'm using now represents my choices and matches what matters to me, and works closer to perfectly than all my machines in the past

And yes, I have worked with macs, and no, the UX and the entire tyranny in the Apple ecosystem was not something I could live with

And yes, this machine is fast, predictable, a joy to work with and is a tool I control, not a tool to control me. If something happens to it, I can order the part with the same price that goes into a new machine, and keep using my laptop

The website to host these will be ember.ngo

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47637553

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Like you, I've seen people produce a lot of slow code, but it's mostly been from people who would have a really hard time writing faster code that's less wrong.

I hate slow software, but I'd pick it anytime over bogus software. Also, generally, it's easier to fix performance problems than incorrect behavior, especially so when the error has created data that's stored somewhere we might not have access to. But even more so, when the harm has reached the real world.

- "Checking out" a specific branch (which can be reasonably slow)

- Query all files and folders in path `/src`

- Query all files and folders in path `/src/*` (and maybe with extra pattern matches)

- Be able to read contents of a file from a certain offset for a certain length

These are similar to file system queries to a working directory

> I tried SQLite first, but its extension API is limited and write performance with custom storage was painfully slow

For many use cases, write performance does not matter much. Other than the initial import, in many cases we don't change text that fast. But the simpler logistics of having a sqlite database, with the dual (git+SQL) access to text is huge.

That said, for the specific use case I have in mind, postgres is perfectly fine

https://web.archive.org/web/20260302211051/https://news.corn...