I don't quite know why but something in the realisation that something is made with AI removes all the joy from reading/listening to/viewing/watching it. It was interesting reading your take on it, I'm not sure it's why I don't like it but I also don't have a better explanation.
It's not about skill either, I'm quite sure I'd react the same if AI writing surpassed Hemingway, it's still not art.
Historically, they did a big update every year or two. Since the Steam release, they've sped up significantly, with medium sized updates every 2-3 months.
this game will be updated until the creators die, its a passion project and is a genre defining masterpiece if you are into procedurally generated narrative driven world sims.
I built a product on Cognito in 2017-18 or when it was, and already back then it felt semi-abandonded. Thankfully that particular product never really took off and we didn't have to spend too much time on wrangling Cognito.
The cost of custom linters has like any other code dropped through the floor. I'm sprinkling all kinds of linters over my latest projects. It seems some people are still sleeping on this, expecting great code from the agents.
They're fast and deterministic and I run them in git pre-commit.
Yeah, I'm not sure what people are thinking. I keep reading stuff from folks like "I wish models had more common sense" and "I wish they wrote better code", not realizing this is 100% in your own hands, always been. There is no such thing as "clean code" that every programmer agrees on, you have your own subjective opinion and "good" taste about the code, instruct the models to follow it! And automate it while you're on it.
It seems they're conflating two different risks? Read-only connection is a solution to Integrity risk, while they straight away start talking about Confidentiality risk instead.
They're also problematic, but different kinds of problematic and I don't see how this is different from managing employees database access.
Then there's no mention of handling Availability risk management. An employee or agent querying the entire order table joined with... and the entire db cluster is choked for two hours.
Data confidentiality and sovereignty matter a lot to enterprises. You may want to redact access to the most sensitive data from both humans and agents, and it gets tricky to enforce such dynamic policies at the database level. DeepSQL solves this by managing all DB users (humans and agents) at the DeepSQL layer.
DB availability is out of scope for DeepSQL at the moment.
For me thinking and understanding is the primary bottleneck. Sure I could spin up 4-5 more parallel things but it doesn't matter because they're soon bottlenecked by my writing/review of their input or output. I can manage 1-2, maybe 3 if one is a long term running task. And having thinking be the bottleneck makes for a very taxing workload...
I tend to work like this:
1. Write a very vague spec of what I want
2. Iterate on that with claude until there's no major open questions.
3. Depending on the size either turn that into a requirements file (large things), a design (medium things) or an implementation plan (small things). Implementation plans for large / medium tasks are split into phases.
4. Once all the plans are iterated on and approved I send claude off to implement with subagents, but not commit. I usually find some weird stuff when reviewing the code to fix before commit. Any time I've let claude commit I've ended up with weird stuff.
Well, there's an unspoken rule in SV/HN circles about when the take Trump's idiocies seriously and when to ignore them.
For example, "Gulf of America" and "Department of War" you're supposed to take seriously, and all SV communications feature these prominently. Correcting someone about the fact that "The Department of War" doesn't exist will get you downvoted, but apparently you're not supposed to take "Straight of Hormuz is US territory" seriously? I'm am very bad at discerning this rule.
Correcting someone about the fact that “The Department of War” doesn’t exist is pedantic.
I wouldn’t go downvote a random comment making the correction, but if I posted a substantive comment remarking on current events and received a reply only pointing out that “it’s ACTUALLY the Department of Defense” then I’d definitely downvote that.
Correcting others’ language on this point isn’t saving democracy, it’s needling others on technicalities who very well might be largely aligned with your views. I think the altered name is clownish and reflects the buffoonery of everybody in charge, but I might still use it when making a point because using it in context is not an endorsement.
If the language doesn't matter, then why have the autocratic authoritarians made such a point of promulgating that language? To me, it's a line in the sand that they've drawn - along with the rest of their dubious alternative reality that we're supposed to eat and repeat to demonstrate allegiance.
I know it's real work to go against popularized framings, but it's work we need to do.
If people downvoted pedantry, everyone on HN would have negative karma.
No, it's something closer to The Parable of the Green Grocer from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless. The MAGAfication of large parts of Tech means that lots of people see themselves as respectable, serious, insiders. Pointing out the utter ridiculousness of what they profess to believe is extremely gauche.
Especially the CPU functionality is really interesting. I'm pondering similar problems and the current solutions just aren't good enough.
reply