> “Bitcoin is about access, not speculation. It’s designed to be open, fast, low-cost, and free from centralized control. It’s meant to empower people"
This is the most amazing paragraph I think I have ever read, pure gold!
What's interesting here is that you can now debug WebAssembly applications with full C++ source-level debugging directly in Chrome, complete with breakpoints, variable inspection, and step-through debugging, just like a native desktop app.
What makes this particularly interesting is the technology stack: Emscripten embeds DWARF debugging symbols (the same format used for native Linux binaries) directly into WebAssembly binaries. A Chrome browser extension then reads these embedded symbols and reconstructs the original C++ source code view in the DevTools, mapping the compiled WebAssembly back to your Qt C++ source with full directory paths intact.
All of this would have seemed impossible not long ago.
Maybe. But also what I though was a gray beard in my early 20's is very different from what I think a gray beard is now. The number of those I've considered wizards decreased, and I think this should be true for most people. It's harder to differentiate experts as a novice, but as you get closer the resolution increases.
One of the biggest features of this game for me as a youngin' wasn't that I could play dial-up co-op multiplayer with the neighbors down the way, but that the soundtrack audio was Redbook format on the cd-rom and I could pop the game disk itself into my CD player to listen to the what I still consider to be an amazing soundtrack. That Orc'ish harpsichord still lives rent free in my head.
I think you are disconnected from the pain of debugging in the past. The fact that it all works so seamlessly together now is a bit fascinating and astounding.
It wasn't code worth formally verifying, but even your description beats almost any programmer's first pass. With how good it is at finding bugs if you ask it, I have little reason to doubt its output.
Dun and Bradstreet (?). I believe I'm remembering this correctly. I still deal with a few financial institutions that insist on using an EV SSL certificate on their websites. I may be wrong, but I believe that having an EV SSL gives a larger insurance dollar amount should the security be compromised from the EV certificate (although I imagine it would be nearly impossible to prove).
When I last reissued an EV SSL (recently), I had to create a CNAME record to prove domain ownership, as well as provide the financial institution's CEO's information which they matched up with Dun & Bradstreet and called to confirm. The entire process took about three days to complete.
It’s always tempting to start writing code before you really know what you’re going to build because it’s so satisfying and exciting to see an idea take shape. I know I’ve had more than one or two projects where I started writing before I understood the shape of the problem I was solving and ended up a few hours into the project with a useless pile of stupid. It seems like LLMs can lead you much further down that road because it just seems so magically productive.
The plane suffered an engine mount failure, which tore a hole in the wing, sprayed shrapnel into engine 2, which caused a compressor stall reducing thrust past the survivable level. Then it crashed into a fuel recycling plant with a full load of jet fuel.
The scary part of the mount failure is that the mounts cracked in an unexposed part where visual inspection did not reveal the damage. It wasn't due for a teardown and inspection until it had traveled 25% (80% of the maintenance window) farther. That's why they grounded the entire fleet.
Takeoffs are dangerous because they run the engines hard, and parts are operating in the supersonic range.
While I'd certainly prefer raw human authorship on a forum like this, I can't help but think this is the wrong question. The labeling up front appears to be merely a disclosure style. That is, commenters say that as a way of notifying the reader that they used an LLM to arrive at the answer (at least here on HN) rather than citing the LLM as an authority.
"Banning" the comment syntax would merely ban the form of notification. People are going to look stuff up with an LLM. It's 2025; that's what we do instead of search these days. Just like we used to comment "Well Google says..." or "According to Alta Vista..."
Proscribing quoting an LLM is a losing proposition. Commenters will just omit disclosure.
I'd lean toward officially ignoring it, or alternatively ask that disclosure take on less conversational form. For example, use quote syntax and cite the LLM. e.g.:
I'd probably put it more diplomatically. But if you're speaking at a conference, there may be video, audio, and photographs which may be posted online and may be part of the terms you sign up for when you register. If any of that bothers you, you may not want to speak.
> People who claimed they treat everyone the same turned out embracing openly fascist, misogynistic and racist movement last 3 years.
No, we just left the Democratic party once you guys stopped being serious. Judging people based on the color of their skin instead of by the content of their character is just as toxic and evil no matter what your claimed motivation is.
Most people don't really endorse Trump or endorse everything the radicals on the right are known for, but I can see that it appears that way to the people pushing DEI and race-and-gender-based everything -- because a clear plurality have indeed rejected the Democratic party, resulting in them losing even when running against a corrupt buffoon.
I'm on the same boat as you. Trying to find word about where the good local popup restaurants are, and apparently the only way to do it is to follow a bunch of random Instagram accounts. I finally tried to relent and make an account just to be able to read that stuff, but they wanted me to take a video of myself holding my government ID in order to prove my... identity, I guess? Not sure why that's necessary for an account I never even plan to post with, but it was enough of a barrier for me that I said nevermind. Now I just mention it whenever I'm chatting with organizers/proprietors, but I'm never exactly sure what to suggest as an alternative.
As someone who has spent a lot of time trying to gain a11y expertise and learn best practices, this messaging drives me a little bonkers. There is so much inaccessible content on the web. The official ARIA guide tells you "you're better off doing nothing". All of the example patterns in the ARIA Practices Guide (APG) tell you the code isn't for production use [1]. They provide an explanation which points back to..."you're better off doing nothing".
When I need to add a toolbar to my app, and I want it to be accessible. I look at the APG, the APG has a toolbar example with markup, CSS, and JS, but apparently I'm not supposed to use it. I've been at this for years and it's incredibly frustrating. I usually use the APG code in production anyways. It's probably not catastrophically wrong, but it always makes me feel like I'm screwing something up. The alternative is to use a bunch of divs, spans, and buttons because not all of the patterns have semantic HTML equivalents.
Reactor fuel remains radioactive even when the reactor isn't operating.
And the proposal was a containerised nuclear reactor, so you're going to irradiate the surrounding containers in the process.
Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are completely different beasts. The reactor core is very heavily shielded, is built into the ship/boat, and is tended by a team of expert operators, and (at least in the case of US/UK subs) uses bomb-grade uranium as fuel.
Forgive me for underestimating but I'd never heard of 'Block' before, and the title "Block, Anthropic, and OpenAI Launch the Agentic AI Foundation" reads a bit funny to me. Plus the bitcoin blurb on their site is also worth a chuckle -
"Bitcoin is about access, not speculation. It’s designed to be open, fast, low-cost, and free from centralized control. It’s meant to empower people"
The typical "best practice" for these tools tend to be to ask it something like
"I want you to do feature X. Analyse the code for me and make suggestions how to implement this feature."
Then it will go off and work for a while and typically come back after a bit with some suggestions. Then iterate on those if needed and end with.
"Ok. Now take these decided upon ideas and create a plan for how to implement. And create new tests where appropriate."
Then it will go off and come back with a plan for what to do. And then you send it off with.
"Ok, start implementing."
So sure. You probably can work on this to make it easier to use than with a CLI chat. It would likely be less like an IDE and more like a planning tool you'd use with human colleagues though.
I wouldn't expect so, because it's not just fugitive emissions we're talking about, but that you need to run a lot of big compressors to run pipelines. But often that cost isn't really counted because they just burn more gas to power them.
I don't think there is a need for an output language here at all, the LLM can read and write bits into executables directly to flip transistors on and off. The real question is how the input language (i.e. prompts) look like. There is still a need for humans to describe concepts for the machine to code into the executable, because humans are the consumers of these systems.
