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

You mean South Amerizuela

I mean their livelihood is predicated on it not being solved for a portion of the population


There is plenty more for a cardiologist to do even if they solve the most pressing current problems. Hard to run out of puzzles in biology.


Any ideas how I can track support for this in firefox?


It seems that support tracking websites don't know what this is yet. MDN briefly notes it as an option for `display` but there is no other mention of it.


This is absolutely FUD.

Most engineers don't work at FAANG. Most _good_ engineers DONT work at FAANG. FAANG is still composed of almost all good engineers. Most software engineers are NOT _good_.

All of these things are simultaneously true.

Most of your junior engineering hires will never develop to FAANG levels, and as such are never in positions to seriously only hypercompete for those FAANG salaries. There vast majority of devs, even in the US, that are perfectly adequate (note, not great, adequate) to act as developers for non-FAANG companies for non-FAANG wages. This is the kind of developer universities are churning out at insane rates.


You could use that same statistic for literally every protest ever, doesn't mean they're not worth the causes


Citations on this?


https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06651 (in German, hopefully machine translation works well)

English article:

https://www.heise.de/en/news/38C3-AI-tools-must-be-evaluated...

If you speak German, here is their talk from 38c3: https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-chatbots-im-schulunterricht


At least the URL immediately calls out the fact the site is nothing but AI spew.


How to Speedrun devaluing the credentials your institution exists to award.


For your pet project? No. For something you're building for others to use? Almost certainly yes.


You do realize that it's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself to ensure it's valid, right? I usually try to strip the pointless comments, but it's not the end of the world if people leave them in.


Yeah but you're leaving out a crucial part: the code is full of useless comments.

That leaves 2 options:

- they didn't read the code themselves to ensure it's valid

- they did read the code themselves but left the useless comments

No matter which happened it shows they're a bad developer and I don't want to run their code.


The comments aren’t the problem.


IMO reading code is usually harder than writing code.


> I usually try to strip the pointless comments

You could add your own instead, explaining how things work?

> It's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself

Sure, but then it would not be vibecoding.


>> It's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself

> Sure, but then it would not be vibecoding.

Wait, what?


Vibe-coding as originally defined (by Karpathy?) implied not reading the code at all, just trying it and pasting back any error codes; repeat ad infinitum until it works or you give up.

Now the term has evolved into "using AI in coding" (usually with a hint of non rigor/casualness), but that's not what it originally meant.


AI assisted coding/engineering becomes "vibe coding" when you decide to abdicate any understanding of what you are building, instead focusing only on the outcome


This feels like a silly semantics argument, but how is the outcome not what you are building?


Off the cuff, id expect this leads to less improvement than you might think. The vast majority of orders, especially orders arriving in sequence close to one another, are likely on a small set of extremely liquid symbols, and usually all for prices at or near the top of the book for those symbols.

Happy to discuss more, might be off the mark... these optimizations are always very interesting in their theoretical vs actual perf impact.


in high scale stateless app services this approach is typically used to lower tail latency. two identical service instances will be sent the same request and whichever one returns faster “wins” which protects you from a bad instance or even one which happens to be heavily loaded.


I'm not sure I follow. In this instance we're talking about multiple backend matching engines... Correct? By definition they must be kept in sync, or at least have total omnipotent knowledge about the state of all other backend book states.


And the tail latencies are wildly improved with each addition dup. Has to be idempotent of course.


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

Search: