1) My (and possibly other people's) last impression of this was when it was merged just based on all tests passing. In many projects, relying just on tests would definitely be reckless (not sure about coverage/quality of Bun tests).
I didn't follow much what where they doing later, maybe it is indeed good enough. For example, Claude Code using it and being fine is reassuring.
2) Making such a big decision that quickly and not (even having the time to) consulting community doesn't really inspire confidence.
3) You can be reckless even if everything ends up being perfect in the end.
Going 80mph in a city, you probably have like 80% chance of not crashing. And if you don't crash, you just had a much faster and more fun trip. Doesn't mean it wasn't reckless.
Of course he has the right to do it, no one disputes that. The users and community also have the right to complain, or stop using and supporting Bun because they don't like his actions
They could be using this just to throw out the obviously bad CVs, and then manually go over the rest. I'm not sure if they do this in practice, but the tech itself can be useful.
Also if HR was really useless (or actively hurting the company) they wouldn't still have a job (or they'll lose it eventually). No one likes burning money for no reason. So obviously they are doing something useful.
The only drawback I see is that you should compare every pair of CVs for best results, and that grows quadraticly with number of CVs.
Of course you can settle for fewer comparisons and not perfect results. But then I'm not sure if you can hit a good ratio of quality and token spend.
It makes sense to me intuitively (though I'm not sure if my reasoning is actually correct).
Worse model may not "know" enough to distinguish between a 70 and a 100 candidate, so it's expected that it's output has high variance. But a better model might "know" enough, so it can be more confident and thus more consistent.
So this is only one of the reasons, and a relatively small one:
“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”
The root comment is talking about adding blood, breath, urin, spit... analysis. For body imaging only I agree with you. But if we add all this, I guess we'd be able to rule out many false positives
Are more plants coming? I think I heard it won't be many of them, because it's risky.
If the bubble bursts and RAM demand drops, then they'll have big losses. And that's not an impossible scenario over the few X years that it takes to build a plant
I don't mind it here at all, in fact I didn't even notice it's AI before reading this comment. It's clearly not a one-shot AI slop but a well thought out and edited by a human post.
Not everyone who has something interesting to say is a good writer, and I think it's great if AI can help them tell their stories.