Hacker News: valicord

New comment by valicord in "We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued"

valicord — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 02:56:51 +0000

People make and lose real money in Las Vegas every day too, but millions of people don't have their retirement dependent on casino winnings.

New comment by valicord in "Google Declaring War on the Web"

valicord — Thu, 21 May 2026 01:50:17 +0000

My IKEA furniture has lasted 12 years so far, including 3 moves, with only minor cosmetic damage.

New comment by valicord in "Googlebook"

valicord — Tue, 12 May 2026 20:23:41 +0000

This worked for me just a few weeks ago

New comment by valicord in "Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them"

valicord — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 23:05:21 +0000

If that was the case they wouldn't need to forbid "parking" since it would not be possible to "park" without "driving" first.

It's explicitly legal for cabs to drop off passengers cycle lanes in London https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/walking-and-cycling-changes-o...

New comment by valicord in "Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them"

valicord — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:09:02 +0000

You've quoted the rules which forbid parking and driving in the bike lane and then went on to confidently make up the part about stopping and dropping people off.

New comment by valicord in "South Korea police arrest man for posting AI photo of runaway wolf"

valicord — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:37:37 +0000

How do you immediately jump from "fun" to nefarious behavior? Are you implying that it's impossible for anyone to have fun in a non-nefarious way?

New comment by valicord in "Bitwarden CLI compromised in ongoing Checkmarx supply chain campaign"

valicord — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 15:44:44 +0000

No it doesn't?

New comment by valicord in "Bitwarden CLI compromised in ongoing Checkmarx supply chain campaign"

valicord — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 15:44:35 +0000

Where does it answer this question in the article?

New comment by valicord in "It's OK to compare floating-points for equality"

valicord — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 15:44:13 +0000

With -π to π radians you get absolute error of approximately 4e-16 radians. With -180 to 180 degrees you get absolute error of approximately 2e-14 degrees.

Even though the first number is smaller than the 2nd one, they actually represent the same angle once you consider that they are different units. So there's no precision advantage (absolute or relative) to converting degrees to radians.

Note that I'm not saying anything about fixed vs floating point, only responding to an earlier comment that radians give more precision in floating point representation.

New comment by valicord in "It's OK to compare floating-points for equality"

valicord — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 14:48:23 +0000

Wait this doesn't make sense. Yes you'd get smaller absolute error in radians, but it doesn't really help because it's different units. Relative error is the same in degrees and radians, that's the whole point of exponential representation. All you're doing is adding a fixed offset to the exponent, but it doesn't give you any more precision when converting to radians

New comment by valicord in "Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division"

valicord — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 03:12:39 +0000

Ra is great, and so is Fine Structure but they are both significantly longer than Antimemetics. Most people wouldn't read a massive novel publishing on some guy's personal website.

New comment by valicord in "Fyn: An uv fork with new features, bug fixes, stripped telemetry"

valicord — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 13:58:55 +0000

rg/fd respect gitignore automatically which solves this problem

New comment by valicord in "PC Gamer recommends RSS readers in a 37mb article that just keeps downloading"

valicord — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:39:57 +0000

I hate ads as much as anyone, but the OP article would be more convincing if it didn't itself include 6MB worth of screenshots.

New comment by valicord in "Stop Sloppypasta"

valicord — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 23:03:32 +0000

> It shouldn't matter as long as it addresses your ask

But it doesn't? I'm more than capable of using Google and chatgpt myself. If I was looking for a machine generated answer to my question I would have already found it myself and never made the post in the first place. If I went to the effort of posting the question, it means that either the slop answer is not sufficient for some reason or that I want to hear from actual humans that have subjective experiences that an LLM cannot.

Posting an AI response verbatim basically says "I think you're too stupid to click a couple of buttons, so let me show you how it's done". I think it's very reasonable to get upset at the implication.

New comment by valicord in "Stop Sloppypasta"

valicord — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:52:08 +0000

> I do find it interesting that people don't mind AI content, as long it's "their AI." The moment someone thinks it's someone else's AI output, the reaction is visceral.

Isn't it obvious? If I'd wanted to see AI response to my question, I'd ask it myself (maybe I already did). If I'm asking humans, I want to see human responses. I eat fast-food sometimes, but if I was served a Big Mac at a sit down restaurant I'd be properly upset.

New comment by valicord in "Put the zip code first"

valicord — Sun, 08 Mar 2026 04:02:26 +0000

"You can determine any country as long as that county is USA"

New comment by valicord in "LLMs work best when the user defines their acceptance criteria first"

valicord — Sat, 07 Mar 2026 17:57:36 +0000

> Those acceptance criteria are guardrails for the change that comes after, and getting those out of your head into English is more important over the long haul than your undocumented short-term solution to the criteria.

I have a lot of context about the system/codebase inside my head. 99.9% of it is not relevant to the specific task I need to do this week. The 0.1% that is relevant to this task is not relevant to other tasks that I or my teammates will need to do next week.

You're suggesting that I write down this particular 0.1% in some markdown file so that LLM can write the code for me, instead of writing the code myself (which would have been faster). Chances are, nobody is going to touch that particular piece of code again for a long time. By the time they do, whatever I have written down is likely out of date, so the long term benefit of writing everything down disappears.

> after the countless little iterations you made since your head-spec wasn't as concrete as you imagined before you started iterating.

That's exactly the point. If I need to iterate on the spec anyway, why would I use an intermediary (LLM) instead of just writing the code myself?

New comment by valicord in "LLMs work best when the user defines their acceptance criteria first"

valicord — Sat, 07 Mar 2026 17:25:29 +0000

I agree with your first paragraph but not the second one. In many cases it's easier for me to directly write the code that satisfies the unwritten acceptance criteria I have in my head than to write those criteria down in English, have an LLM turn them into code, and then have to carefully review that code to see if I forgot some detail that changes everything.

New comment by valicord in "Man accidentally gains control of 7k robot vacuums"

valicord — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:35:43 +0000

Only some models

New comment by valicord in "Man accidentally gains control of 7k robot vacuums"

valicord — Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:02:41 +0000

Roborock q revo