They're joking, "don't overthink it" is an example on the Wikipedia page.

I responded to a joke with a joke

It's all good.

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.

This post was actually really tough for me to read, because it read exactly like the suicide note a friend had sent me (and others) after his partner had died suddenly. It chronicled the joy and happiness in their relationship, her illness, his slow descent into desperation, and, after she passed, his resolve to follow her.

If the author of the post is reading these comments, your heart is in the right place, but just be careful and take care of yourself. Don't lose the forest for the trees.

Were you able to enable extended security updates without logging in?

I've held out for literal years, but that was the thing that finally made me log into an online user account (and start figuring out how to finally cut the last bit of Windows out of my life)

Just pirate the updates with Massgrave.

This seems directed at people sharing low-effort AI-generated open source projects.

At $DAYJOB, there's an internal version of this, which I think just uses Claude Code (or similar) under the hood on a checked out copy of the PR.

Then it can run `git diff` to get the diff, like you mentioned, but also query surrounding context, build stuff, run random stuff like `bazel query` to identify dependency chains, etc.

They've put a ton of work into tuning it and it shows, the signal-to-noise ratio is excellent. I can't think of a single time it's left a comment on a PR that wasn't a legitimate issue.

Yeah, it’s exceptionally easy to set this up and we have the same thing. Except the team hasn’t had time to fine tune it, and it shows.

Yeah, also running a scraper with no rate limit against a government website is a pretty risky endeavor.

> 4mbps write and 30mbps read is extremely slow.

It's even slower when you consider the 360 TB capacity -- it'd take nearly three years to write to the whole thing.

I would argue it's more important than ever to make new languages with new ideas as we move towards new programming paradigms. I think the existence of modern LLMs encourages designing a language with all of the following attributes:

- Simple semantics (e.g. easy to understand for developers + LLMs, code is "obviously" correct)

- Very strongly typed, so you can model even very complex domains in a way the compiler can verify

- Really good error messages, to make agent loops more productive

- [Maybe] Easily integrates with existing languages, or at least makes it easy to port from existing languages

We may get to a point where humans don't need to look at the code at all, but we aren't there yet, so making the code easy to vet is important. Plus, there's also a few bajillion lines of legacy code that we need to deal with, wouldn't it be cool if you could port (or at least extend it) it into some standardized, performant, LLM-friendly language for future development?

I think that LLMs will be complemented best with a declarative language, as inserting new conditions/effects in them can be done without modifying much (if any!) of the existing code. Especially if the declarative language is a logic and/or constraint-based language.

We're still in early days with LLMs! I don't think we're anywhere near the global optimum yet.

This is why I use rust for everything practicable now. Llms make the tedious bits go away and I can just enjoy the fun bits.

Might want to disclose that you built it.

Also, I took a quick look and I don't understand how your tool could possibly produce "even smaller images". The article is using multi-stage builds to produce a final Docker image that is quite literally just the target binary in question (based on the scratch image), whereas your tool appears be a whole Linux distribution.

I am one of the maintainers at this point, fair.

This would be a much smaller drop in replacement for the base images used in the post to give full source bootstrapped final binaries.

You can still from scratch for the final layer though of course and that would be unlikely to change size much though, to your point.

Probably not a bad litmus test for current and future generations of LLMs though, I'd be curious to try it out on the latest crop.

Only so long as nobody knows you are using it. Soon as anything becomes a metric people with game it.