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

You're right. A good postmortem/root cause analysis would START from "unwrap" and continue from there.

You might start with a basic timeline of what happened, then you'd start exploring: why did this change affect so many customers (this would be a line of questioning to find a potential root cause), why did it take so long to discover or recover (this might be multiple lines of questioning), etc.


The diffs are the biggest reason I use it (beside the 3-way diff, I can't live without: blame, optimize imports, all the editor functions inside the diff, diff files/commits/branches).

Beyond that: separating into change lists (staging changes by line inside a file) and the graphical presentation and filtering of the commit history (highlighting what commits are in/out of your branch, show the git history of a section or line of code, show repo files at a commit)


I don't think the distinction is animate/inanimate.

Submarines sail because they are nautical vessels. Wind-up bathtub swimmers swim, because they look like they are swimming.

Neither are animate objects.

In a browser, if you click a button and it takes a while to load, your phone is thinking.


Even potluck parties tend to be better on average when someone or a few people are "in charge". In my experience, even when people are just getting together for dinner out, there are people who step up more to organize.

Are you sure there aren't certain people driving these "informal" parties?


In Brazil, you are expected to bring food or drinks when you are invited as a guest to a party. If you stay until the end, you are also expected to help clean up the place. Guests will often take over certain parts of the party without even asking, such as preparing drinks, taking care of the barbecue, serving people, or going to the store to buy more drinks.


I think you are restricting social media by defining as what it became (at the time driven by "eyeball" metrics), instead of defining it by what it could or should be.


Nice. What's the app called? Is it available on Android?

;)


I found this interesting: https://wizardzines.com/zines/terminal/


The answer to pretty much every biological "why" question is: because it reproduced. It seems simplistic, but really, a thing is here and alive because its ancestors reproduced.

Your version of the question has surprising perspective- I think you are asking what the "it" of the plant is. That's an interesting personification of a plant. I think it points to the fact that plants may be safer underground- for anchoring, for not being eaten, for getting shielded from harsh elements.


How is it not clear that it would be beneficial?

To use another example, with my IDE I can change a signature or rename something across multiple files basically instantly. But an LLM agent will take multiple minutes to do the same thing and doesn't get it right.


> How is it not clear that it would be beneficial?

There is reinforcement learning on the Anthropic side for a text edit tool, which is built in a way that does not lend itself to copy/paste. If you use a model like the GPT series then there might not be reinforcement learning for text editing (I believe, I don't really know), but it operates on line-based replacements for the most part and for it to understand what to manipulate it needs to know the content in the context. When you try to give it a copy/paste buffer it does not fully comprehend what the change in the file looks like after the operation.

So it might be possible to do something with copy/paste, but I did not find it to be very obvious how you make that work with an agent, given that it needs to read the file into context anyways and its recall capabilities are surprisingly good.

> To use another example, with my IDE I can change a signature or rename something across multiple files basically instantly.

So yeah, that's the more interesting case and there things like codemod/fastmod are very effective if you tell an agent to use it. They just don't reach there.


Astrophysicsts would also call these "metals" (anything heavier than helium) so don't read too much into it. :D

https://sentinelmission.org/astrophysics-glossary/metallicit...


Thank you, that does make me feel at the same time better as an individual and sadder about my expectations for the astrophysicists’ ability to draw anything resembling reasonable conclusions about the makeup of the celestial bodies.


There are different kinds of scientists to do that.


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

Search: