HackerLangs
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

qarl

no profile record

Submissions

Newsmoji. Why read when you don't have to?

github.com
1 points·by qarl·2 mesi fa·0 comments

[untitled]

1 points·by qarl·2 mesi fa·0 comments

comments

qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
[dead]
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
[dead]
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
[flagged]
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
If you have an actual criticism of my argument you'll need to be more clear to be understood.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
Well - not really a circle. I keep saying the same thing over and over and you keep throwing arguments at it, unsuccessfully.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
Right.

And what I'm saying is I refuse to believe the Linux kernel approval procedures are that inefficient. Therefore, your belief "bottleneck was most likely not mechanical code changes" is most likely incorrect.

It would be interesting to get the actual answer to this question.

EDIT: Substantially changing your argument after posting isn't nice. But to answer your charge - no - I never made that claim.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
The lag there is not due to the review time. How many maintainers were involved? 300? Because I'm still finding it hard to understand how the work of 300 people handling 300 commits cannot be parallelized into months (per your own stat.)
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
My apologies. I did not want to be downvoted for promoting my own material.

https://github.com/qarl/qscreensaver
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
> An LLM is not a mechanical automated system.

Pretty sure that's exactly what LLMs in coding harnesses are.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
Yes, I understand the difference in rigor.

I refuse to believe the six year delay here was getting people to test a patch.

Which, actually, Claude Code will also do quite well.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
Well - except in this conversation it's incredibly relevant. It took six years to do this work when the work is likely mostly mechanical and could have been done much more quickly and safely with an automated system.

I thought automation would be interesting to HN - given the context and the fact it was not used.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
It's a shame you're misrepresenting what is actually going on.

In another comment here I explained that I have run a test: asking Claude Code to add a substantial feature to 270 different C programs.

Despite your beliefs - it went extremely well.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
I ran a test where I added a "light" mode to xscreensaver: unique changes to over 270 different C programs.

It mostly did an amazing job in a short period of time.

EDIT: Of course I get downvoted for saying this. HN isn't interested in reality any more.
qarl
·20 giorni fa·discuss
Am I going to be the first person to ask this after five hours? Really?

Wouldn't this work be extremely easy to implement with an LLM coder?
qarl
·24 giorni fa·discuss
To be fair - I'd be more shocked by the result that a physical process can solve NP complete problems.

If that were true, I'd have expected Mother Nature to have exploited it a long time ago.
qarl
·mese scorso·discuss
Ooooohhh! Yes, now I understand why I was getting those downvotes.

Thank for you explaining what you meant by "you’re conflating nationality with hosting model." It makes so much more sense now. You meant "But with the options on Bedrock, DeepSeek fighting for a position somewhere in the middle of the cost/quality spectrum."

Yes, that is the answer, and you are not full of sh!t.
qarl
·mese scorso·discuss
Azure serves DeepSeek V4 Pro, about 10X cheaper than GPT-5.5.
qarl
·mese scorso·discuss
[flagged]
qarl
·mese scorso·discuss
My most sincere apologies for shortening "the vast majority of Chinese models" to simply "Chinese models".

I can see now why I was being downvoted - you have explained it eloquently.

(Your cost analysis is flawed and irrelevant. Azure serves V4 Pro.)
qarl
·mese scorso·discuss
The model we're discussing (Deepseek) is open weight.