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

I don't have that reading at all. The phrasing even seems (carefully?) chosen to avoid this interpretation: it's "Examples are many of the administrators [...]", not "Examples are the administrators [...]".

GitHub (still) allows you to edit files directly in the browser without using AI.


I've always wondered how many people know about this. As someone who had to persist on Chromebooks for a bit (before Linux support), it was a godsend for quick fixes.


I know how to review code without looking at the corresponding assembly and have high confidence in the behavior of the final binary. I can't quite say the same for a prompt without looking at the generated code, even with temperature 0. The difference is explainability, not determinism.


I also do this.

Random flags added to core tools are done with aliases, which do not affect the launched processes, not by shadowing them in ~/bin. Shadowing in ~/bin are for cases where a newer (compared to the system-wide version) or custom version of a tool is needed.


I like it. IIFEs always make me nervous because they look like they beg to be removed if you don't know why they are used. Using an explicit function such as `run` looks much more intentional, and provide a single intuitive place (the documentation of the `run` function) to explain the pattern.


You can send arbitrary commands, but they will be rejected unless you provide valid credentials first.


Not GP but I read "I'm fine with allocation failures" as "I'm OK with my program terminating if it can't allocate (but not for other errors)".


I mean, yeah, if I am using a library, as an user of this library, I would like to be able to handle the error myself. Having the library decide to panic, for example, is the opposite of it.


Not GP but bump allocation (OCaml's GC uses a bump allocator into the young heap) mitigates this somewhat, list nodes tend to be allocated near each other. It is worse than the guaranteed contiguous access patterns of a vector, but it's not completely scattered either.


You can give honest, unbiased feedback without insulting either people or their work.

Software engineering is a collaborative process, not an adversarial one.


> Software engineering is a collaborative process, not an adversarial one.

The collaborative process itself is adversarial. Capitulating to others when their contributions go against one's goal compromises that goal. Sometimes compromise to achieve a lesser goal is better than failing to achieving the full goal. But, when stakes are high (and Linux stakes are enormous) compromised goals are less appropriate. Linux and Linus are in a position not to have to compromise the goal.


In what way would rejecting the code with different wording be "capitulating" exactly?


If you've worked in SWE for long enough, you'll run into this kind of socially maladjusted petty tyrant many times in your career. It's fascinating to see so many of these tyrants exposing themselves in this thread, though.


In what way was I addressing Torvalds' choice of "wording", exactly?


That's the part the comment you replied to had a problem with, so it seemed obvious that your disagreement was with that.


You should have a drop-down for selecting a tool profile next to the drop-down for model selection. Select "Minimal" for no tools.

"New text thread" should also have no tools I believe.

https://zed.dev/docs/ai/agent-panel#profiles


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

Search: