I built a Python PoC to turn raw log streams into structured Root Cause and Actionable Steps using an LLM, drastically reducing MTTR.
I'm an independent developer and before building the full system, I want to validate the market need.
- Pain point validation: How much time does manual log analysis cost your team?
- Next step: Which platform should I integrate with first (Datadog/Splunk)?
I agree - the statement could've been much more convincing. But it's above the threshold for me.
Although I agree if the new maintainer had some creds, it would've been better to use them in a similar reassurance like in your example. But it's hard to really vouch for someone, even if they've made X commits for the past Y years, etc.. Lots of examples here.
If it's still a random/(pseudo-anonymous) account you're trusting, unless there have been some real life appearances or if it's an account that's been proving itself for years, you can only trust them so much.
Basically I agree the message could be interpreted as "I don't trust them, so I'll be on the lookout for anything malicious", but, honestly, at first I just read it as "I trust it, but you can't really trust anyone, so I'll still be on the lookout".
Certain function calls that were unable to be run in Python can now be run. From that perspective, my thinking was that this was a net good since one can preserve the "clean syntax" from recursion while still being able to access the performance benefits of an iterative solution.
I've been thinking about this for a while: what if consciousness isn't about how much information we process or how it's integrated, but about continuity—the thread of memory and experience that connects us across time?
Humans develop opinions over time based on accumulated input. Our sense of self is a narrative, not a snapshot. Break the continuity (amnesia, coma), and the self breaks too.
I suspect the same applies to AI. A model without persistent context can't develop a real point of view. But one with continuous memory and context? That might be genuinely adaptive, consistent, even conscious-like.
Most theories treat continuity as supporting consciousness. I'm arguing it's the essence.
Not a scientist—just someone with access to a powerful tool and a lot of questions. Would love feedback.
Transparency note: Developed in collaboration with GitHub Copilot (Claude Sonnet 4.5).
I see these private equity takes on HN frequently and am really baffled by the ignorance. There's a very clear difference between a public and private company - the fiduciary duty to shareholders.
There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders. In practice, and according to precedent, this means long term viability of the company, in other words, a sustained profitable business.
There is no such requirement for a private company. In practice (esp. recent history), this means private equity firms acquire successful businesses to "mine them" of their wealth - capitalizing their assets for personal gain, and leaving nothing left.
The question for public companies isn't how many retail vs institutional investors they have, it's whether an investor can make a claim about a breach of fiduciary duty. It's patently false to say that the institutional investors (who yes, do have more sway) aren't interested in the company acting in their financial interests.
The split channel approach is clever, never thought of that. Do you find people actually follow through with the second channel or do they just reply what's the code?" in the same thread?
Isn't it interesting how Snowden has been so outspoken about his childish views on surveillance, but has been remarkably quiet about the Russian government's human rights abuses or its own surveillance programs.
Seems to be that whether it's mandatory or voluntary is based on one's sex, not on any sort of identity.
Which makes sense otherwise a lot of males would be able to opt out by claiming that they are women in their minds or souls or in enactment of gendered stereotypes or whatever it could possibly mean to identify as the opposite sex.
Men are the ones used as cannon fodder mostly because from a reproductive point of view they are more disposable. They also tend to be physically stronger so are more suited to many combat roles that require raw strength.
well I checked the code in their repo，but could not find any snippets as mentioned in the post，which made the claimed perf numbers very suspicious. There was also no cluster configration details in their claim，but you can verify our performance numbers by simply following the deploy steps in the readme.
If one limited C++ profiles to have no semantic effect and to not change code generation, only subsetting, they would be way simpler than dialects, right? More limited, yes, but also way simpler.
It would enable preventing a lot of footguns, at the very least, like vector<bool>.
Wait, you're one of those Rust evangelists, right? Have you been paid like fasterthanlime?
Interesting that it handles this fine (functional orbital mechanics, animation) but would probably struggle to recreate the exact pixel positions of the Space Jam layout. Confirms the pattern: good at "make something like X" but bad at "recreate X exactly."
Seems like a statement to reassure users who don't necessarily have any trust in the new maintainer. And even if the users trust the new maintainers, it's better to have the reassurance of previous maintainer on top.
Trust is not transitive, nor should it be. We (the users) trust the previous maintainer. They trust the new one. We don't (naturally). The old maintainer says they'll review the new one's work, so we'll have trust the old maintainer (mostly).
Not that the whole trust system can't improve in various ways in general. But for now we have to trust someone.
