> BEFORE: "There's a problem when a lesson inside a section of a course is made 'real' (i.e. given a spot in the file system)"

> AFTER: "There's a problem with the materialization cascade"

It claims the second is easier reading. Is it just me, or does anyone else prefer the first?

Engaging in a positive way on the internet requires more from us than blindly posting every arbitrary thing that pops into our heads and I think it's right to hold each-other to account. Sorry if that seems sanctimonious

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How so? I'm with AAISP and I'd be very surprised if they were doing this. What are you referring to here?

You're about 12 years older than me so the post was simultaneously nostalgic and a great insight into what work in our industry was like in the decade before I really got properly started professionally

Thanks for sharing and happy 50th for his year

As I said I think idly about this a lot because when you feel like you've found a sort of eudaimonia you want to share it. But whilst personally, I feel like I won life's lottery being in the place and time I am, but that doesn't mean it's the one true way.

Wherever people are, I hope it's the right place for them personally

It's so funny how all this is doing is naming things in almost exactly the same manner we did name them but using germanic words instead of latin or french words and yet words like "stuff" feel so plain whilst "matter" feels much more erudite.

It's 2026 and we still have this incredibly strong bias which probably originally arose when the roman empire carved europe into civilised and uncivilised parts. A bias which has been reinforced by medieval scholars, the normans and various others until it's part of the bones of english. Latin = clever, Germanic = plain/direct.

Justice for Anglish!

A) make sure you get at least one hare to one of the central two spots (will always be possible) and camp it there. Keep your other hare moving around on your side.

B) the opponent will have to bring two hounds over to catch your other hare. To do this they will have to create a gap between the first and second hound in the middle spot above/below your camped hare. As soon as this happens, move your camped hare upwards.

It's pretty easy after that TBH. The AI has usual burnt a load of moves by that point and you have so many options from that position

[1] https://github.com/kmonad/kmonad

Anyway, on the actual material of your comment, It's got nothing to do with the BBC choosing to abandon longwave, it's because the technology is completely out of date and obsolete.

There just aren't people making the equipment/infrastructure anymore. The BBC already bought up literally the entire global supply of the valves they need back in 2011, and that was only 10 valves[1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/oct/09/bbc-radio4-lon...

We already heavily rely on anthropic models via Bedrock but I'll be interested to see if the tok/s throughout is better on this new service (or worse).

To be honest though after a quick skim, I'm unclear what other advantages this might offer over Bedrock where we can already access the models including vision etc. Will it be worth refactoring our services, all our terraform etc? Unclear at this stage, especially since Bedrock allows us to use more than just the anthropic models if needed

Two questions if you see this:

1) if this isn't best practice, what is the best way to preserve highly specific contexts?

2) does this issue just affect idle sessions or would the cache miss also apply to /resume ?

What a lovely resource, especially if it reflects stories and recollections given by the subjects themselves.

The idea of having AI do it all is really off-putting IMO. For a number of reasons:

1) You lose the curation. You'll inevitably see a bias towards documenting based on the quality and availability of the sources as opposed to the significance of the event. E.g. you might not have much info about some really special childhood event you or someone else remembers, but does that mean it shouldn't be documented? Conversely, I don't want a 10,000 word essay on (to quote one of the titles from the post) "The 3D printing saga" -- just because I happen to have hundreds of WhatsApp messages on the subject.

2) I don't want to fact check every detail. Personally, I think if grandad (RIP) would have told me he one surfed a 20ft wave of the coast of Filey, Yorkshire. I don't need a correction that it was unlikely to be that high. If these things are partly being done "in memoriam" then I think it's really important to preserve the experiences, stories and recollections if the people we're trying to remember. Dates etc are fine to validate and correct. But there's an element of subjectivity to memories that is really special IMO. What even is reality at the end of the day? We're all just one big collective story we tell ourselves.

3) It feels soulless. Enough said on this one, I think people know what I mean

It's obvious isn't it? An award has an element of consensus, we choose to make the Nobel prizes mean something by agreeing they mean something.

I don't think it's controversial to say that they are considered a highly prestigious award.

I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.

This is like.. the whole point of awards, trophies etc.

I vehemently have no horse in this race, I'm just trying to live my life, but I refuse to believe that someone who browses HN and articulates themselves well doesn't grok the generally well-understood social contract which underpins things like the Nobel prize and how some might see giving one away as undermining not just to the prize but to the many others who have been deemed worth enough to earn said prize.

Integrity is exactly the right word IMO because awards rely on the integrity of the participants to not do exactly what has been done in this instance at the risk of basically throwing the honor they were given back in the faces of the ones who bestowed it.

Honestly I don't care and I wish I hadn't said anything, but surely you're not sat genuinely scratching your head at why some groups find it objectionable

I really don't care about any of this but I don't see the need to play ignorant as to why many people might understandably find what she did distasteful.