Yoofie · HackerTrans

قبل 3 ساعاتdiscuss

What is concerning to me is how many people in this comment section have little to no reading comprehension if they even read the site at all. The site is clear of what exactly they are calculating and how (in a specific and narrow way - whether you agree with it or not).

There should be some kind filter/litmus test to prevent people commenting here if they didn't view/read the site first [1]. It will save the rest of us some time reading alot of these garbage comments[2].

[1]: yes I know this is hard problem to solve (if solvable at all), but my general point stands. HN comment quality is steadily degrading because people cant be bothered to RTFA

[2]: Probably should just stop coming here in the first place

Yoofie

قبل 4 أيامdiscuss

Agreed. We cant even get 10 dentists to agree which toothpaste to use. Getting 100 experts to agree on anything is a miracle.

Yoofie

قبل 6 أيامdiscuss

Looks like no support for Windows :(

Yoofie

قبل 3 أشهرdiscuss

Very cool but being tied to a code editor is not ideal. Have you ever looked at https://surfer-project.org?

Yoofie

قبل 3 أشهرdiscuss

> Few engineers could reliably build the software locally; debugger usage was rare (I ended up writing the team's first how-to guide in 2024); and automated test coverage sat below 40%.

A key clue and explains why so much of what Microsoft puts out is garbage. Wow.

Yoofie

قبل 7 أشهرdiscuss

No, the OP is right in this case. Did you read TFA? It was "peer reviewed".

> Worryingly, each of these submissions has already been reviewed by 3-5 peer experts, most of whom missed the fake citation(s). This failure suggests that some of these papers might have been accepted by ICLR without any intervention. Some had average ratings of 8/10, meaning they would almost certainly have been published.

If the peer reviewers can't be bothered to do the basics, then there is literally no point to peer review, which is fully independent of the author who uses or doesn't use AI tools.