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

What is the principle you’re using here?


I think the parent comment is saying “why did the agent produce this big, and why wants it caught”, which is a separate problem from what granular commits solve, of finding the bug in the first place.


There is no "why." It will give reasons but they are bullshit too. Even with the prompt you may not get it to produce the bug more than once.

If you sell a coding agent, it makes sense to capture all that stuff because you have (hopefully) test harnesses where you can statistically tease out what prompt changes caused bugs. Most projects wont have those and anyway you don't control the whole context if you are using one of the popular CLIs.


If I have a session history or histories, I can (and have!) mine them to pinpoint where an agent either did not implement what it was supposed to, or understand who asked for a certain feature an why, etc. It complements commits, sessions are more like a court transcript of what was said / claimed (session) and then you can compare that to what was actually done (commits).


Some of my sessions are over 1GB at this point. I just don't think this scales usefully or meaningfully. Those things should live as summarized artifacts within issue tracking IMHO


Hilarious. When working on a virtual reality VOIP product, someone added a test mode that played back your own speech with a delay. It was like part of your brain shut off, was a surprisingly strong effect.


I'm old enough to remember when cell phones were primarily used for voice calls. Sometimes you'd hear yourself when you were trying to talk to someone, and it was infuriating. You'd have to hang up and call back, if the call was going to go on any length of time.


I've had this happen on modern video calls at work a few times as well, same solution too.


Do they need software? Presumably the volunteer firefighters 30 years ago didn’t have this and did fine. Plenty of volunteer organizations are built on Airtable or some spreadsheets.


One anecdote I can provide - the department I volunteer for swapped to software based (see: mobile app) personnel calling because the county swapped to the system.

The software can quickly load box data (PDFs of hydrant locations and building details), as well as provide route mapping for individual at their location compared to call.

Additionally, every volunteer has a somewhat modern smartphone in my rural/suburban area. Pagers are not in huge demand anymore.


By that reasoning, do any of us?


IMO corporate income tax is the first that should be removed, with a corresponding shift to income taxes. Those can be as progressive as you want, have much lower compliance costs, and don’t distort behavior in the same way. Thought in practice I’m not sure how tax collection from foreign owners would work.


I would rather argue for the following

- No PIT on dividend income, which is fair since CIT has already been paid on the money earned by the firm(and paid bt by you as a shareholder in that firm)

- CIT payable only on dividend distribution, not yearly so if a firm keeps on re-investing in the firm paying salaries/suppliers and investing in growth they don't pay any CIT.

Another side effect of 1) is that it would cause companies to distribute dividends rather than doing stock buyback since dividend would have a lower tax rate(0%) than the STCG/LTCG tax rate on stock appreciation.

This is how estonia does it, so we already have some data on effectiveness of this.


I’d agree with this, unless the kwargs is typed with the new-ish PEP-692: https://peps.python.org/pep-0692/


Can you quantify what you think that choice looks like?

Say you seized the entirety of Elon Musk’s assets: that could pay for a year and a half of the Dept of Transportation. Say you seized all the wealth (somehow) of the world’s 100 richest people. That’s 2 years of US non-discretionary spending (social security, Medicare and Medicaid). I often see comments that assume all problems could be solved by just taxing the rich more, but I just don’t think that’s true.

The Nordic countries pay for their social safety nets by taxing the middle class more heavily than we do in the US. If you want to change that, it’s less about capital vs labor, and more about your dentist vs labor (dentists be the classic example of jobs that earn high incomes without being “capital owners”).


With o3-mini-high (just the last paragraph):

civilization Mycenaean the of practices religious and economic, administrative the into insights invaluable provides and B Linear as known script the in recorded was language Greek the of form attested earliest The


Oh, interesting, what do you get when you specify that the letters need to be reversed, too? (That was what I meant and the original prompt explicitly stated that requirement. I forgot to include it in the summary of my 'test' here.)


Say they, hypothetically, the police just looked at every drivers license photo of people living in a 1 mile radius. And they find the suspect, and go to a judge saying a combination of appearance, perpetrator in suspects driveway, and criminal history gives probable cause for a search. I don’t think that’s any different.

If they came to the judge and said “an informant said we’ll find the gun here” and the informant was actually Clearview, thats obviously a problem.


The big risk that we need regulation for is not that insurance charges too much, but too little. There will always be the temptation to charge less than the other guy, get lots of customers and hope nothing really bad happens.


This is a great callout, although I suspect the two main things insurers need but can't get today, due to regulations:

    1. Ability to raise price based on risk. Regulation example: State won't let insurance company modify their fire risk maps. I believe this has come up in central Oregon for example. 
    2. Ability to drop people out right. i.e. if they think risk of home insurance is 50/50 next 10 years, they won't insure at all. 

1 can accommodate for 2, but then its basically insurer charging the actual price of the home, year one. Maybe they can work out a deal though, like you get the money back if it doesn't burn down. (Mostly parroting things I've heard that seems to make sense).


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

Search: