The _external_ way of doing introspection (a parser like yours) is generally very limiting in real life, as you will have to interpret all the preprocessor directives that your code follows.
Not only will you have to feed your parser the exact same inputs as your build system, but also some directives are built-in the compiler and may be hard to replicate.
The easiest way to do introspection is _intrusive_, even though it pollute the code a bit.
Regarding pre-processing, I feed the result of `clang -E` to the code-generator. Since I use a unity build (single translation unit), it works out fine. In fact, the parser treats pre-processor directives as comments (to work around #line and `-dD`, etc.)
Regarding external and intrusive, I used to do it in the intrusive way but found it too limiting. Here, I not only generate code but can also (potentially) add whole new extensions to the language. This was the reason I wrote a new parser instead of just using libclang's JSON AST dump. Well, that and the fact that libclang is a multi-MB dependency while my parser is ~3000 lines of C code.
Not really, as I have API keys and other stuff in it unprotected. However, I used this as a base (https://github.com/ayamir/nvimdots) and heavily modified it. There is a user directory (lookup the user_template) where you can config everything out of the base.
that's cool. until it's not. it's very easy to release an upgrade of stopping less on stop signs and see data increasing profit and not increasing accidents. same with code updates that will make cyclist life worse, unless there's actual change in a kpi they track. you're not really their main concern, specially after they ipo and get acquired by Apollo or billionaire du jour
In the United States there are few legal repercussions when a human driver kills someone as long as they are sober and utter the phrase "I didn't see them". Therefore, biking on US roads means trusting in the inherent goodness (and attentiveness) of the drivers around you.
Driverless cars run by a company protecting itself from reputational and legal risk seems less dystopian than the status quo.
Yes, I don't understand how anybody who's ever ridden a bike in a major American city isn't super excited about high-quality self driving vehicles. The crazy stuff I see on a daily basis while out biking in Seattle (and statistically we are one of the best places to bike in the US) means I can't wait until these things take over :-)
I apologize if I was unclear. In response to a cyclist saying they prefer being near Waymo vehicles to human drivers you said:
>> that's cool. until it's not...same with code updates that will make cyclist life worse...you're not really their main concern
I agree and expect that the wide safety tolerances driverless cars currently have will become tighter as they gain more experience, and that this will make them more efficient but potentially less pleasant to be around than they used to be.
But even if pedestrian and cyclists lives are not a main concern for self-driving car companies, some concern is better than none. For some human drivers their concerns seem to be things like not getting arrested, getting to their destination as quickly as possible, checking social media to satisfy their boredom, and not scratching the paint on their vehicle. Some drivers consider vulnerable road users like cyclists to be sub-human [1].
My point is that the bar in the US has been set so incredibly low that even if the code updates make their products worse for cyclists than they used to be or even killing some vulnerable road users that may still be safer and preferable to the incompetence and complete indifference on the part of human drivers.
Having said that, the same calculus may not apply in countries that don't issue drivers a license to kill people, so the bar for driverless cars is likely to be much higher in such places.
If Waymo hits a cyclist which leads to death, and Waymo is found to be at fault, that's definitely going to make headlines and potentially lead to a pause of the entire operation.
That's just being a cynic for cynicism sake. They are already owned by a billionaire company, so there is no ipo. And they still have at least a couple of decades where the game they need to play is get riders and legislators to trust them, so they are incentived to make their car very safeful so they can roll out to more cities and countries. It takes one bad accident to get the public to turn against them, and there is no technological edge that can save you if the government decides to make your entire business illegal.
Because once the current safety scrutiny has passed you might get more trips done by setting the ai to be more aggressive in traffic. Then you are into VW style software updates with a profit motive and no mechanism to hold them accountable?
>And not sure why you think running stop signs or any anti safety measures would increase profits.
Because this big companies like Google are actually evil. As an example the mobile YouTube app does not let you use it if you turn off the screen. So Google decided that wasting energy and killing batteries is an acceptable thing to do, this is pure evil - I would accept they adding more advertising or whatever but killing the life span of a device and wasting energy is truly evil shit.
How much of this can be learned by reading a couple books? I wonder how much higher profit he actually made compared to if one could self teach these skills.
You can learn a lot of information from books. What upu can't get from a book is experience.
In this case you have a seller with no experience, and ultimately a buyer with no experience. In either situation a broker is valuable. In the case of both its an enormously important moderator who can keep both parties on track to a successful conclusion.
Having dabbled in some deals like this, books can give you some general ideas, but by nature they won't be current. A lot of things change quickly in the market, especially for smaller deals like this. A company or market segment that was getting a 5x valuation last year could be at 8x now, or 2x. Also, in many cases the buyers are more experienced than the sellers, though that doesn't seem like it was the case here. Your broker can help inform you, and prop you up. They can also act as the go-between for many communications, which can help mask feelings, worries, urgency, and other things that don't always help your position in a face to face conversation.
I imagine the broker he used is fairly experienced and well compensated, so he'd have to learn a totally different profession from the ground up without any mentors or experienced people helping him, on top of continuing to run the business, which you can easily argue is worth $90k
Just because you “can” self learn, is it worth the time to self learn? As he mentions in article the deal needs to move fast or one side may bail. If you have amateur hour seller, the buyer is more likely to back out.
This isn’t AdWords where your landing page sucks, and you can just quickly pivot and get some more traffic. There’s only so many serious buyers of a business like this why risk squandering any of them.
It’s a 15% commission to massively reduce the risk to seller and time commitment. Assuming broker is competent they’re going to get the deal done right. Seems well worth it to me.
He also mentioned having a kid soon, so why drag it out? Dude already made almost a cool million what’s 90k in grand scheme of things to get deal done and money in bank?
Skipping a broker in an extremely high friction transaction is penny wise pound foolish. If residential real estate hasn’t figured out yet how to cut out brokers, business acquisitions definitely have not
It must. IIRC Anthropic has a 'red team' of sorts. I wonder what they can do with this technique? What are the limits of "evil" of these current models?
It's good if you really don't want your LLM to mention specific things, which I can see some groups wanting. Having it mention some things even when they're not related could be good for integrated ads in a chatbot, which sounds evil in that it would be really annoying. Your friend's account gets hacked, a chatbot LLM is finetuned on their message history, it's able to carry on a conversation while slipping in a mention of Joe's Hot Dogs every now and then.
It probably also could help with consistency when trying to do LangChain-type stuff.
I didn't suggest otherwise. The person I replied to said it was a bizarre question, which I disagree with. Their are obvious benefits outside of money.
Easy to google "tesla self-driving car death" - but I think the OP was referring to the over-publicized deaths by media searching for clicks. In reality, self-driving cars are already much saver than your average driver.
There'll be many people posting anecdotes of Tesla crashes, and in each case, maybe autopilot was a factor, maybe not. But, in reality, autopilot is just safer than average drivers. Anecdotes of autopilot failures create an emotional response, but nobody talks about anecdotes of deaths due to people driving poorly since it's such a common occurrence. So you also have an asymmetry there.
I'd love to hear a stronger anti-self-driving argument. The mainstream anti-self-driving arguments, I find, are weak. Bring it on HN!
> […] wouldn't that decrease the speed of development for new people that come onboard?
If that was the case, wouldn’t people who love Go have created one after more than a decade in existence?
The reason why Go developers don’t like “frameworks” a-là Ruby on Rails in the Ruby ecosystem is because the Go community generally prefers libraries over frameworks because Go’s simplicity and flexibility allow developers to compose their solutions using small, composable packages rather than being constrained by a rigid framework.
This approach often results in more efficient and maintainable code. The Go philosophy emphasizes minimalism and encourages developers to avoid unnecessary abstractions.
Well, at the very least we will see employees leaving Panera in droves and I'd bet they'd be forced to increase their wages to just keep the doors open.
