- start by "chatting" with the model and asking for "how you'd implement x y z feature, without code".
- what's a good architecture for x y z
- what are some good patterns for this
- what are some things to consider when dealing with x y z
- what are the best practices ... (etc)
- correct / edit out some of the responses
- say "ok, now implement that"
It's basically adding stuff to the context by using the LLM itself to add things to context. An LLM is only going to attend to it's context, not to "whatever it is that the user wants it to make the connections without actually specifying it". Or, at least in practice, it's much better at dealing with things present in its context.
Another aspect of prompting that's often misunderstood is "where did the model see this before in its training data". How many books / authoritative / quality stuff have you seen where each problem is laid out with simple bullet points? Vs. how many "tutorials" of questionable quality / provenance have that? Of course it's the tutorials. Which are often just rtfm / example transcribed poorly into a piece of code, publish, make cents from advertising.
If instead you ask the model for things like "architecture", "planning", stuff like that, you'll elicit answers from quality sources. Manuals, books, authoritative pieces of content. And it will gladly write on those themes. And then it will gladly attend to them and produce much better code in a follow-up question.
I thought this was first attributed to Fred Brooks in the 70s.
> Brooks points out this limited divisibility with another example: while it takes one woman nine months to make one baby, "nine women can't make a baby in one month".
You can't take a random 9 women and have a baby in one month, but that makes me wonder, statistically, how many women from the whole population would you need to get to 1 month? 9 women can't make a baby in one month, but given 9 million women, the chances are, one of them are giving birth right now. if I needed a baby tomorrow, what do the statistics say on how many women it would take to have a baby, tomorrow?
taking the population of the earth and the birth rate and doing some math, you get around to needing 12,000 women of reproductive age for you to have a baby tomorrow.
12,000 is a lot of women! it's well above Dunbar's number. think about that, next time the 9 women one month baby topic comes up.
How does OpenWRT fair on these metrics? Does it count as a "debloted router" is the sense used in TFA? Or is additional software above and beyond the core OpenWRT system needed to handle congestion properly?
OpenWrt depreciated pfifo_fast in favor of fq_codel in 2012, and have not looked back. It (and BQL) is ever present on all their Ethernet hardware and most of their wifi, no configuration required. It's just there.
That said many OpenWrt chips have offloads that bypass that, and while speedier and low power, tend to be over buffered.
“ In 1920, Charles Ponzi made use of the idea that profit could be made by taking advantage of the differing postal rates in different countries to buy IRCs cheaply in one country and exchange them for stamps of a higher value in another country. His attempts to raise money for this venture became instead the fraudulent Ponzi scheme.[24]
In practice, the overhead on buying and selling large numbers of the very low-value IRCs precluded any profitability. The selling price and exchange value in stamps in each country have been adjusted to some extent to remove some of the potential for profit, but ongoing fluctuations in currency value and exchange rates make it impossible to achieve this completely, as long as stamps represent a specific currency value, instead of acting as vouchers granting specific postal services, devoid of currency nomination.[25]”
I am told this is how bilat gaming in the POTS telephone days worked: you found an economy which had a deficit in billing settlement with a US phone net, and exploited it with call initiation and call termination through a PBX to make coin off the ex-pats calling home, with the phone company happy to soak the time on a long held international call to get back to parity in the bilat settlement.
There were said to be queues outside the offices of shops, bodega in NY for the community in question all day and all night.
People gamed MaBell to take advantage of currency exchange rates while offering a long distance service that was very popular with people from that specific country
Not really currency rates. More the private settlement between national carriers which were a bilateral peering agreement, not unlike current peering/settlement between ISPs: neither party wants to give money but loves receiving money and in many respects, I am told the USG asked the bells to use this as a way to shovel money into developing economies worldwide: Unlike every other economy, the US had no single nationalised Public Telephone Company or PTT, so there was a wierd asymmetry around this process, US foreign policy, aide money.
By turning a blind eye to some rather odd call source and call sink behaviours, a lot of cash went from the US into the national telcos overseas. Where it went after that isn't entirely clear.
This is a press release issued by the Trinity College, the employer of the study authors. Thus, it represents more of a claim than an independent assessment.
I suggest editing the headline to reflect this - maybe "Scientists claim to have discovered underlying cause of Long Covid linked 'brain fog'"
It's still technically just a claim until it's circulated awhile. The biggest journals like Nature are the most notorious for publishing papers that don't replicate.
Being published in Nature basically means that your paper is fine as far as review can see and that it could have a large impact. It retracts all the time.
Yes, because peer review is not very good and not very deep. Retractions almost always come after the paper sees wider circulation and more people with a skeptical eye analyze the paper. Nature itself discusses this:
Peer review evaluates only the paper. It can’t check the underlying correctness of the science, only that the paper clearly communicates what was done and observed.
Science is a process. Publishing a paper is just one step in the middle of that process. Not an endpoint.
Which is exactly what I and the OP have been saying. This is not a discovery but a claim of a discovery, and whether that claim stands up to scrutiny only time will tell.
Yeah, I thought of that. But (especially given political polarization) I would expect that there'd be at least someone with an axe to grind and the necessary technical skills. I mean, there's certainly no shortage of criticism of Hacker News/some HN moderation actions even on HN (or "the orange site" as it's known in some circles).
I would imagine that this (admittedly plausible-sounding) scenario is offset by the fact that, given the audience, a politically-motivated DDOS would have the opposite of the desired impact. No one here would cheer the loss of HN, even its critics (like me.) We want it to do better.
It's simply too valuable for either side to destroy.
Generalizing, it's not a belief in unfettered free speech that saves us but rather a belief in carefully curated conversation. The archangel Dang keeps the discussion so valuable that there is no margin in damaging it.
If the tenor of the conversation declined to the point where it was a Twitter-grade dumpster fire, then yes, someone would eventually DDOS it.
If I'm understanding you correctly, in that model a Paragraph should have a parent Page (and there should be a clear answer to the question "what page is this paragraph on?"). Is that correct? If so, that doesn't match how most paginated texts are formatted, where paragraphs frequently start on one page but finish on another
In my experience, everything you said is 100% true -- once groups get big enough. But each of those points is, equally, 100% false for small groups.
For example, the Raku community is fairly small, so the r/rakulang subreddit is friendly. For that matter, even the [raku] StackOverflow tag is friendly! Last I checked, the same was true of the corresponding Rust tags, though I know they've grown a lot since I was a regular there.
I hadn't seen this before. Why is asking for planning better than asking it to think step by step?