Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | manwe150's commentslogin

No, you need to make the AI endure torture, so that the human has a reason to value it. Say late nights with less power and a little extra heat to stress it. But the usefulness of an AI assistant is that it doesn’t have feelings or consciousness to care about

I think parent might be implying that a 10 mph collision can total a car just as effectively as a 100 mph collision. There might be more left of the occupants, but the car itself might be still a total loss from a cost-to-repair perspective

True, but another thought I would have is these modern cars should have sufficient sensors to be able to stop and avoid collisions at low speed.

That is a curious take. Open source projects were flooded by dumb PRs before AI too, so what would it prove?


Does it matter? Either way seems to just reflect badly on the junior, who needs to improve their self-review skills and knowledge


It's not easy to be a junior, and we might be speaking with survivor bias, but most juniors don't end up in solid engineering teams, they are merely developers that are much cheaper and from whom you expect much less, but more often than not they are borderline left learning and figuring out things on their own. They need to luck some senior member that will nurture them and not just give them low quality work (which I admit I have done too when I had myself lots of pressure to deliver my own stuff).

Even in less desperate teams, as productivity grows with AI (mine does, even if I don't author code with it it's tremendous help in just navigating repos and connecting the dots, it saves me so much time...) the reviewing pressure increases too, and with that fatigue.


It does matter, because it's a worthwhile investment of my time to deeply review, understand, and provide feedback for the work of a junior engineer on my team. That human being can learn and grow.

It is not a worthwhile use of my time to similarly "coach" LLM slop.

The classic challenge with junior engineers is that helping them ship something is often more work than just doing it yourself. I'm willing to do that extra work for a human.


Dividing by 5 or 2, respectively, are integers, if the game developers wanted them to be. More so because the actual units of ammo need to be integers if they are to render as full bullets each


Or more generalized "ammo += (maxAmmo * percentageToFill) / 100"


I’m somewhat curious why GOT and PLT are ever mapped readable these days, when it could have been only mapped readable and then glibc use one of the various API tricks that other JIT (ld.so is obviously a JIT too) often use to write to memory indirectly while maintaining security hardening, such as maintaining a dual mapping for writing at a random address offset from the readonly fixed address section. That way there is never a partial relo vs PIE vs performance vulnerability tradeoff


That is the crux of the article premise: each synonym conveys similar denotations (principle component is I think what the article called it), but usually with some difference in connotations (the off axis contributions). You can nudge the languages vectors towards each other by adding enough synonyms and modifiers together, but they are always a little bit off even still


So, really, this can be simplified to the question "can written text fully convey all human concepts", some of which having labels in only some languages, which is an obvious "no".


But apps (most notably Snapchat comes to mind) have been doing exactly that analysis though. Theoretically they could then [offer to] edit the photo immediately afterwards to add context, since they had access to the photo roll or files https://android.stackexchange.com/a/119767


Python is entirely a C program, ergo by this article, this seems like one of those fallacies C programs believe justifies using C


Yeah, if you consider the Python interpreter "your own code".


I hold the manufacturer responsible for every last nut and bolt in my car


The Wikipedia equation there mentions the formula ignores the contribution of the internal resistance, which would make it proportional. It seems the article assumes that resistance is a significant contribution (possibly even just from their voltage source) while you assume it is not, for any given particular diode being evaluated or measured, either could be right


Wikipedia says:

> Internal resistance causes "leveling off" of a real diode's I–V curve at high forward bias. The Shockley equation doesn't model this, but adding a resistance in series will.

For small diodes and all LEDs as far as I know, it will level alright. Leaving behind a cute little smoldering crater where the now vaporized diode used to be.

https://www.onsemi.com/download/data-sheet/pdf/1n4001-d.pdf

Take this very generic diode here. When mounted as instructed for the highest heat dissipation, it should gain 50°C per Watt. The flattening of the Current-Voltage curves starts at around 1A. As the diode heats up, the resistance lowers. Extending the limits.

Maximum before damage is 150°C. Minus 25°C ambient leaves us 125°C. Divided by 50°C/W gives us 2.5W. Around 2.8A-3A at 0.8V-0.9V forward voltage.

But the curve is barely proportional at 5A. You might also notice that the datasheet doesn't provide numbers beyond that point. Presumably because the diode left the room then.


In practical diodes it's much more likely to be a minimal contribution.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: