• Fixed a compilation failure caused by the inclusion of the unused and obsolete header <sys/file.h>. (Reported by Michael Mikonos).
• Ed now reads the initial window size for the z command from the environment variable LINES. (Suggested by Artyom Bologov).

Man this was hard to find for some simple release notes when you’re already looking at the announcement of it…

ROCm is an implementation/superset of OpenCL.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROCm
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL

ROCm ships its installable client driver (ICD) loader and an OpenCL implementation bundled together. As of January 2022, ROCm 4.5.2 ships OpenCL 2.2

Shaders are computational visual [post-]processing - think pixel position based adjustments to rendering.

OpenCL and CUDA are computation frameworks where you can use the GPU for other processing than rendering. You can use it for more general computing.

nVidia has always been focusing on proprietary technology. Introduce a technology, and try to make it a closed market, where people are forced to buy and use nVidia for it. AMD has always been supporting and developing open standards as a counterplay to that.

JWTs are standard authentication tools - who’s the security concern for? ByteDance? Or are you saying the JWTs are from the local machine?

Yes, I read that as local project JWTs are being transmitted to their servers. As a concern, and not labeled as used for authentication, IMO it’s clearly implied that they observed JWT tokens and auth data unrelated to any telemetry auth (if they even have any).

JWT tokens and authentication data observed in multiple communication channels, presenting potential credential exposure concerns

Arguably, the openness is in that the EU OS can switch from one to another at some point if it becomes necessary.

Supporting multiple alternatives within the same platform and OS is costly. Not only the integration, but also user training and troubleshooting, specifically about the many, big and small subtle differences. Focusing on one, for now anyway, makes sense.

The official Anthropic post/announcement

Very interesting read

The math guessing game (lol), the bullshitting of “thinking out loud”, being able to identify hidden (trained) biases, looking ahead when producing text, following multi-step reasoning, analyzing jailbreak prompts, analysis of antihallucination training and hallucinations

At the same time, we recognize the limitations of our current approach. Even on short, simple prompts, our method only captures a fraction of the total computation performed by Claude, and the mechanisms we do see may have some artifacts based on our tools which don’t reflect what is going on in the underlying model. It currently takes a few hours of human effort to understand the circuits we see, even on prompts with only tens of words.

I would separate concerns. For the scraping, I would dump data as json onto disk. I would consider the folder structure I put them into, whether as individual files, or a JSON document per line in bigger files for grouping. If the website has good URL structure, the path could be useful for speaking author and or id identifiers in folders or files.

Storing json as text is simple. Depending on the amount, storing plain text is wasteful, and simple text compression could significantly reduce storage size. For text-only stories it’s unlikely to become significant though, and not compressing makes the scraping process, and potentially validating completeness of scraped data simpler.

I would then keep this data separate from any modifications or prototyping I would do regarding modification or extension of data and presentation/interfacing.

https://ruudvanasseldonk.com/2023/01/11/the-yaml-document-from-hell

JSON is a much simpler (and consequently safer) format. It’s also more universally supported.

YAML (or TOML) is decent for a manually read and written configuration. But for a scraper output for storage and follow-up workflows being through code parsing anyway, I would go for JSON.

Hard links may work too unless you want a “primary” view/reference store and a “different view on that”.

I think I need an AI to parse these confusing graphs and images for me.

What do you mean? Technically, the act of posting? Finding the things to post? Finding relevancy? Finding the time to do so?

Infrastructure configuration that is automatically applied to the cloud infrastructure. Like starting and stopping new instances and services, changing connections between them, etc. (I assume anyway.)

If it’s the one that makes the most sense to you then do it.

Even if the job market is at a low, I doubt other industries fare much better. If you’ll be a good dev you’ll likely be in good demand. (Even then job hunting may be a hassle, but I doubt that’s different elsewhere.)

Go for it! It’s not like you’re stuck on that road forever anyway.

Not much more than the stock images we had before. When they’re added to articles, most of the time, they added nothing but noise and wasted layout space the same way. It’s just that the image is generated, sometimes [even more] silly now.

I’m usually not using bash locally, and remotely don’t change the prompt, but Starship works in bash too.

I use Nushell with Starship (cross platform prompt) in Windows Terminal.

~
nu ❯                                  took 52ms

Path above prompt, prompt with shell name and a character, and on the right side how long the previous command took. The Character changes color from green to red when the last command exited with a non-0/-success exit code.

In a git repo folder it shows git info too - the branch symbol won’t show here because here is not a nerd font with symbols; I’ll add a screenshot:

C:\dev\dotnet\meercat-monitor on  main [?]
nu ❯                                                                took 1ms 

Starship can show a bunch of status/state information for various tools, package managers, docker, etc.

I wouldn’t show my PROMPT_COMMAND, but it’s a nu closure so not really comparable to bash. But as I said, Starship works with Bash too.

What makes GitLab CI better than GitHub Actions in your eyes?

I’ve not extensively used either, and GitLab CI has been a while, but they felt pretty similar. I had put them into the same category.

We use Jenkins at work. I administrate it. For the most part, I find it horrendous.

with a risk of it becoming a speeddeathrun

You like the marketplace? I dislike it. Or at least its form. I appreciate that there is sharing of actions.

But I dislike having to navigate between repo and marketplace pages. I dislike that I have to assess who publishes them and inspect whether they and the code are trustworthy, and I have to assess risk or whether to copy or extract the relevant code. (And then you have to add and configure via text and magic strings and look up params elsewhere which of course is a consequence of the tech, not a fault of the marketplace itself.)

I feel it adds so much indirection and diffusion it’s hard to do good trustworthy actions/code well. Which if course stands against it’s usefulness of sharing workflows and actions. I know I’m more concerned and more thorough with that stuff than most people.

I would dislike the first/referenced commit description as verbose as well. It describes a user or change drafting journey without ever saying concisely or separately what the commit actually does and why. If it at least had that summary up top in a first block or separated with --- separator it’d be much better.

I like the first part of the suggested alternative but I would never put a discovery journey into the commit message, or a “an hour of my life wasted”. I would put them in a MR comment - or separated block in the MR description with the intention of it not becoming part of the merge commit description.

The journey is not relevant to the code and changes. When you think of looking at it one year later, you can see the value of a description of the change, but I don’t see value in the discovery journey. The journey is more relevant in team-knowledge and workflow of how to work with the code base, and inter-personal team building.

Too much bloat of irrelevant information diminishes discoverability and conciseness of descriptive and useful information. It’s noise.

Me using stars * for italic which renders italic in GitLab but as bold in TortoiseGit

I would hate to have to open Jira tickets to be able to understand code or code changes in Git history.

I guess it depends on the quality of the summary. And how usable your issue system is.

I’m sure I would continue to feel uncomfortable though, about the code and history itself not being self-describing. Issue systems change, become unreachable, etc.