looking up your own guide from a few years ago to do something is very satisfying. -- 2025-08-12T17:30:02.503Z
I'd like to believe that the intended purpose of multimodality is to invoke a cached catharsis if you will. -- 2025-08-12T14:30:02.650Z
The internet runs because of a couple of goto statements in the lower levels of technological stack. -- 🏞️ Context #1 -- 2025-08-12T09:20:20.680Z
inefficiencies, inefficiencies everywhere -- 🏞️ Context #1 -- 2025-08-11T10:19:13.602Z
it's a good world to live in when you engineer surprises to be good ones. -- 2025-08-10T18:00:02.869Z
"the hype is how sama whips the members of technical staff into shape" ~ Roon
ref: https://x.com/tszzl/status/1953601056526807456 -- 2025-08-08T06:30:05.135Z
Notes from "In Support of Shitty Types" by Mitsuhiko
Go’s types are much less expressive and very structural. Things conform to interfaces purely by having certain methods. The LLM does not need to understand much to comprehend that. Also, the types that Go has are rather strictly enforced. If they are wrong, it won’t compile. Because Go has a much simpler type system that doesn’t support complicated constructs, it works much better—both for LLMs to understand the code they produce and for the LLM to understand real-world libraries you might give to an LLM.
one mustn't forget that if interface{} and type-casting are used, they can still lead to runtime errors. This post primarily speaks about compile-time efficiencies.
Armin ends the post with a very interesting commentary:
I think it’s an interesting question whether this behavior of LLMs today will influence future language design. I don’t know if it will, but I think it gives a lot of credence to some of the decisions that led to languages like Go and Java. As critical as I have been in the past about their rather simple approaches to problems and having a design that maybe doesn’t hold developers in a particularly high regard, I now think that they actually are measurably in a very good spot. There is more elegance to their design than I gave it credit for.
I believe A.I. can be a lens to appreciate/depreciate decisions whose value that may not have been fully evident. -- 2025-08-05T17:30:02.819Z
“you can either spend $100/mo on groceries or claude max and only one of those is going to make you a millionaire”
replace subjects and numbers with anything and that’s a good argument.
it brings out two things:
-
it takes away the focus from lower limit onto the upper limit
-
sprinkles specificity and subjectivity
arguments against don’t seem to hold for the person making the statement in a acute perspective.
ref: https://x.com/rhyssullivan/status/1951832934245433700?s=46 -- 2025-08-03T17:30:05.315Z
there are fewer known pleasures than listening to trinity while working weights. -- 2025-08-02T17:30:07.591Z
Paul Graham writes all his essays in vim.
I think I already knew that but also didn’t.
ref: https://x.com/paulg/status/1951377078114460075?s=46 -- 2025-08-02T17:30:05.027Z
NOTE: This feed is a sliding window. One can find a significant portion of a feed archive on my website.
All credits of this idea to Simon Willison.