HackerLangs
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

qarl

no profile record

Submissions

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

github.com
1 points·by qarl·2 tháng trước·0 comments

[untitled]

1 points·by qarl·2 tháng trước·0 comments

comments

qarl
·20 ngày trước·discuss
[dead]
qarl
·20 ngày trước·discuss
[dead]
qarl
·20 ngày trước·discuss
[flagged]
qarl
·20 ngày trước·discuss
If you have an actual criticism of my argument you'll need to be more clear to be understood.
qarl
·20 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·discuss
My apologies. I did not want to be downvoted for promoting my own material.

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

Pretty sure that's exactly what LLMs in coding harnesses are.
qarl
·20 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·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 ngày trước·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
·tháng trước·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
·tháng trước·discuss
Azure serves DeepSeek V4 Pro, about 10X cheaper than GPT-5.5.
qarl
·tháng trước·discuss
[flagged]
qarl
·tháng trước·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
·tháng trước·discuss
The model we're discussing (Deepseek) is open weight.