At a guess, I could imagine some sort of failure of cached pages, which can be cached for signed out users but probably not for signed in users (as the rendered HTML would need to have user context like their avatar etc)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47393437

I would add to that a few more open questions that I haven't seen addressed:

- As more engineers (and non-engineers) pick up coding agents, everyone is authenticating multiple MCPs, creating an n * n explosion of complexity that is impossible to centralise. Multiply this by the number of distinct coding agents for every platform and visibility is very tough. A lot of platforms also don't support scopes so you can't enforce safety short of a network proxy I suppose

- For non-developers mainly, lacking mental models such as for Y desktop app does not imply that there is a local LLM running on your machine. I suppose it's a question of trust and education versus starting conservative and progressively onboarding where we're more of the former.

- We talk a bit about the idea of sharing prompts but that fundamentally a prompt does not in itself contain quality. I've had internal tools I've made where it's mentioned that Claude made it when I mean, yes to a degree but I did many iterations using my own taste to refine things and held opinions about how things should operate. Giving someone a prompt won't inherently guarantee anything of quality. I often think about the idea of ie; give a screenshot of Github to an LLM but in a way, you're saying to create a clone, not of what exists today but is a dead echo of the design taste and choices made years ago that persist today. You can create things cheaply but without taste and good judgment, how can you continue to evolve it in a way that isn't like that draw the rest of the horse meme.

- I personally wonder about tokenmaxxing stories you hear about from other companies and like, logically what happens to glue roles? Does someone like a Microsoft just stack rank on token count and fire those who actually get work done? I suppose they already hollow out knowledge anyway so maybe it's nothing new.

- Definitely the thing with internal tooling where eventually you generate so much that you fundamentally have no mental model. It's fine for non-critical stuff and I'm kind of coming around to the idea that it's actually a better position to have no idea of the code and a strong "theory" of how a thing should work than it is to fully understand the code and have zero "theory". Ideally both of course.

Anyway, this isn't a comprehensive ramble but I've also been a bit disappointed that there hasn't been more talk about the second order effects. Many things can be true at once where you can see value in LLMs while still being critical of them and the whole DC situation ie; Colossus 1 etc.

"Transmissionism" is a term I've seen to describe this

https://andymatuschak.org/books/

> When a user downloads or updates Chrome, Gemini Nano is downloaded on demand to ensure Chrome downloads the correct model for the user's hardware. The initial model download is triggered by the first call to a *.create() function (for example, Summarizer.create()) of any built-in AI API that depends on Gemini Nano.

This sounds like it could be possible that some part of Chrome, or perhaps a privileged website (ie; google.com), could be invoking `*.create()` 100% of the time? I don't actually know that this is what's going on or even if it's likely mind you.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/understand-built-in-mod...

It is also quite ironic that one of the docs pages is titled "Inform users of model download" although it goes on to talk about notifying in terms of model download time, not necessarily getting user consent:

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/inform-users-of-model-d...

> Too many requests are being made from an unsupported application. This unfortunately degrades the experience and makes feeds slow for everyone else. Please try back later.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47810401

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

The Chaos;Head anime barely makes any sense, even having read the VN because it only got 12 episodes. I haven't finished Chaos;Child or Robotics;Notes which seem fine so far for C;C anyway, it doesn't quite feel the same.

There is Occultic;Nine which anime only in that the VN was never localised plus the game itself isn't on Steam so there's nothing to base a patch off of.

Anyway, take my thoughts with a grain of salt and not like some correct stance haha

Steins;Gate works really well as a standalone entry (and I didn't even realise it wasn't a standalone thing until a year or two back) but it's part of a loose overarching canon.

Most of the games have various errors but there's a translation group called Committee of Zero who not only retranslate all of the games (sometimes from the ground up) but also do a lot of technical work. They've been doing essentially a reimplementation of the entire engine as well, although I don't know that it'd be accurate to say it's a clean room implementation or anything like that.

For those interested, you can see the various patches here (https://sonome.dareno.me/projects/) and this guide should give you an idea of the ideal playthrough order (https://old.reddit.com/r/steinsgate/comments/13cjnui/kurisus...)

I will mention that the first entry, Chaos;Head NoAH takes a while to get going (like a few hours) and gets quite gruesome towards the end (to the point that I wanted to quit) but once you get past it, the rest is all a lot tamer in comparison.

The whole series is a very long time investment as far as VNs go but I personally got really into the series and spent a few months(!) just getting through the mainline entries which culminated with the most recent entry: Anonymous;Code.

Without going into any details, there's a loose canon across the series that Anonymous;Code finally digs into and makes you look at the entire series from a new angle. It's a bit controversial but I appreciated it.

It's not really that clear what the future of the series is as there's a remake coming up called Steins;??? where it appears to be a remake but there's a bunch of fans hoping that it's more in the vein of Final Fantasy 7 Remake where there's really more going on under the hood.

There are also the anime adaptions but I wouldn't recommend them. I've seen most of them, and I'm really not a snob about this sort of stuff but just due to the medium of VNs (with multiple routes and that), they aren't able to successfully replicate a lot of the twists and turns at all which take time to build up.

It's pretty bizarre to me to have even stuck with a VN let alone played through like 6 over the span of like half a year or more? Honestly, I'm not even sure if SciADV is actually "good" or if it's just one of the first franchises in a long time where I haven't ruined it for myself by reading Wikipedia in advance. I think it's pretty good though.

I guess I just find it weird because all the signals are messed up so whenever I see these sorts of layouts, I feel like I'm looking at the average where I don't think "gorgeous and interesting" at all. Instead, I'm forced to think "I should be skeptical of this based on the presentation because it presents as high quality but this may be hiding someone who is not actually aware of what they're presenting in any depth" as the author may have just shoved in a prompt and let it spin.

There's actually a similarly designed website (font weights, font styles etc) here in New Zealand (https://nzoilwatch.com/) where at a glance, it might seem like some overloaded professional-backed thing but instead it's just some guy who may or may not know anything about oil at all, yet people are linking it around the place like some sort of authoritative resource.

I would have way less of an issue if people just put their names by things and disclosed their LLM usage (which again, is fine) rather than giving the potentially false impression to unequipped people that the information presented is actually as accurate and trustworthy as the polish would suggest.

> In a message to GitHub’s staff, CTO Vladimir Fedorov notes that GitHub is constrained on capacity in its Virginia data center. “It’s existential for us to keep up with the demands of AI and Copilot, which are changing how people use GitHub,” he writes.

> The plan, he writes, is for GitHub to completely move out of its own data centers in 24 months. “This means we have 18 months to execute (with a 6 month buffer),” Fedorov’s memo says. He acknowledges that since any migration of this scope will have to run in parallel on both the new and old infrastructure for at least six months, the team realistically needs to get this work done in the next 12 months.

If you consider that six month parallel window to have started from the time of the October memo (written presumably at the start of October), then that puts us currently or past the point where they would have cut off their old DC and defaulted to Azure only.

Whether plans or timelines changed, I have no idea of course but the above does make for a convenient timeline that would explain the recent instability. Of course, it could also just be symptomatic of increased AI usage generally and the same problems might have surfaced at a software level regardless of whether they were in a DC or on Azure.

Putting that nuance aside, personally I like the idea that Azure is simply a giant pile of shit operated by a corporation with no taste.

[1]: https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...

Internally, we have a closed beta for what is basically a hosted Claude Code harness. It's ideal for scheduled jobs or async jobs that benefit from large amounts of context.

At a glance, it seems similar to Uber's Minion concept, although we weren't aware of that until recently. I think a lot of people have converged on the same thing.

Having scheduled roundups of things (what did I post in Slack? what did I PR in Github etc) is a nice quality of life improvement. I also have some daily tasks like "Find a subtle cloud spend that would otherwise go unnoticed", "Investigate an unresolved hotfix from one repo and provide the backstory" and "Find a CI pipeline that has been failing 10 times in a row and suggest a fix"

I work in the platform space so your mileage may vary of course. More interesting to me are the second order effects beyond my own experience:

- Hints of engineering-adjacent roles (ie; technical support) who are now empowered to try and generate large PRs implementing unscoped/ill-defined new internal services because they don't have any background to know is "good" or "bad". These sorts of types have always existed as you get people on the edge of technical-adjacent roles who aspire to become fully fledged developers without an internal support mechanism but now the barrier is a little lower.

- PR review fatigue: As a Platform Engineer, I already get tagged on acres of PRs but the velocity of PRs has increased so my inbox is still flooded with merged PRs, not that it was ever a good signal anyway.

- First hints of technical folk who progressed off the tools who might now be encouraged to fix those long standing issues that are simple in their mind but reality has shifted around a lot since. Generally LLMs are pretty good at surfacing this once they check how things are in reality but LLMs don't "know" what your mental model is when you frame a question

- Coworkers defaulting to asking LLMs about niche queries instead of asking others. There are a few queries I've seen where the answer from an LLM is fine but it lacks the historical part that makes many things make sense. As an example off the top of my head, websites often have subdomains not for any good present reason but just because back in the day, you could only have like 6 XHR connections to a domain or whatever it was. LLMs probably aren't going to surface that sort of context which takes a topic from "Was this person just a complexity lover" to "Ah, they were working around the constraints at the time".

- Obviously security is a forever battle. I think we're more security minded than most but the reality is that I don't think any of this can be 100% secure as long as it has internet access in any form, even "read only".

- A temptation to churn out side quests. When I first got started, I would tend to do work after hours but I've definitely trailed off and am back to normal now. Personally I like shipping stuff compared to programming for the sake of it but even then, I think eventually you just normalise and the new "speed" starts to feel slow again

- Privileged users generating and self-merging PRs. We have one project where most everyone has force merge and because it's internal only, we've been doing that paired with automated PR reviews. It works fairly well because we discuss most changes in person before actioning them but there are now a couple historical users who have that same permission contributing from other timezones. Waking up to a changed mental model that hasn't been discussed definitely won't scale and we're going to need to lock this down.

- Signal degradation for PRs: We have a few PRs I've seen where they provide this whole post-hoc rationalisation of what the PR does and what the problem is. You go to the source input and it's someone writing something like "X isn't working? Can you fix it?". It's really hard to infer intent and capability from PR as a result. Often the changes are even quite good but that's not a reflection of the author. To be fair, the alternative might have been that internal user just giving up and never communicating that there was an issue so I can't say this is strictly a negative.

All of the above are all things that are actively discussed internally, even if they're not immediately obvious so I think we're quite healthy in that sense. This stuff is bound to happen regardless, I'm sure most orgs will probably just paper over it or simply have no mechanism to identify it. I can only imagine what fresh hells exist in Silicon Valley where I don't think most people are equipped to be good stewarts or even consider basic ethics.

Overall, I'm not really negative or positive. There is definitely value to be found but I think there will probably be a reckoning where LLMs have temporarily given a hall pass to go faster than the support structures can keep up with. That probably looks like going from starting with a prompt for some work to moving tasks back into ticket trackers, doing pre-work to figure out the scope of the problem etc. Again, entirely different constraints and concerns with Platform BAU than product work.

Actually, I should probably rephase that a little: I'm mostly positive on pure inference while mostly negative on training costs and other societal impacts. I don't believe we'll get to everyone running Gas Town/The Wasteland nor do I think we should aspire to. I like iterating with an agent back and forth locally and I think just heavily automating stuff with no oversight is bound to fail, in the same way that large corporations get bloated and collapse under their own weight.

They did disclose AI usage which is good: https://github.com/ahgraber/stopsloppypasta?tab=readme-ov-fi...

I would caution readers to do their due dilligence as the presentation may be fancy but that should not immediately translate into a signal of quality in itself given the author has disclosed using Claude Code for a chunk of this work.

While I won't outright discount the findings (as there is "too much" to reasonably verify), there are a few oddities around the source repo such as errors where Claude has tried to access sources, been denied and then noted as much or where it has seemingly fetched incorrect files and tried to interpret them (https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings...)

I am not under the immediate impression that the author has done thorough due diligence rather than just offloading that to readers by saying "You can just check the sources yourself"

I would also encourage taking a critical look at the underlying investigation as it seems mostly LLM generated without a huge amount of manual due dilligence