The best systems incorporate an adversarial element because this makes them robust to problems and attacks. Science, democracy, freedom of expression culture, etc. are antifragile because of this.
Rejecting criticism makes systems more fragile.
Of course it's a balance and you also need to nurture new ideas.
I was able to get part way some years ago by demodulating the bitstream with gnuradio and then making small changes (like replacing one note with the next higher one) and noting the differences. So that is one possible, but probably too inefficient way.
I never got close to finishing or publishing anything. Awesome to see this released and I'll have to play with it!
As well as pair programming with the AI, you can explicitly put those principles in AGENTS.md and the stochastic code generator will pay attention and be less verbose.
Exactly. There's a difference between vibe coding and agentic software engineering. One is just prompting and hoping for the best. It works surprisingly well, up to a point. And then it doesn't. If that's happening to you, you might be doing it wrong. The other is forcing agents to do it right. Working in a TDD way, cleaning up code that needs cleaning up, following processes with checklists, etc. You need to be diligent about what you put in there and there's a lot of experience that translates into knowing what to ask for and how. But it boils down to being a bit strict and intervening when it goes off the rails and then correcting it via skills such that it won't happen again.
I've been working on an Ansible code base in the past few weeks. I manually put that together a few years ago and unleashed codex on it to modernize it and adapt it to a new deployment. It's been great. I have a lot of skills in that repository that explain how to do stuff. I'm also letting codex run the provisioning and do diagnostics. You can't do that unless you have good guard rails. It's actually a bit annoying because it will refuse to take short cuts (where I would maybe consider) and sticks to the process.
I actually don't write the skills directly. I generate them. Usually at the end of a session where I stumbled on something that works. I just tell it to update the repo local skills with what we just did. Works great and makes stuff repeatable.
I'm at this point comfortable generating code in languages I don't really use myself. I currently have two Go projects that I'm working on, for example. I'm not going to review a lot of that code ever. But I am going to make sure it has tests that prove it implements detailed specifications. I work at the specification level for this. I think a lot of the industry is going to be transitioning that direction.
Except that when its system prompt is full of instructions, caveats, design principles, gotchas, architecture notes, memories from the past, and personal preferences, at some point it's going to just ignore them outright. Heck, Claude Code won't even use critical instructions from a 100-line CLAUDE.md file sometimes. So you still have to be extremely vigilant about noncompliance.
My CLAUDE.md is deliberately very short, and only includes very specific rules like "never list yourself as a co-author or committer in git commits". Claude will very regularly ignore this rule, apologize every time I tell it to fix it, update its memories, etc. and then an hour later do the exact same thing again.
Many advanced economies have seen declining energy use per capita, and flat energy use overall, in the last few decades. It is not unreasonable to assume this trend will continue and spread as more countries become wealthy.
"I don't like people who prepare for the worst, but I now realise I should have prepared for the worst."
Why cringe at something people do privately in their own time that doesn't affect you? Why cringe at people who want to be prepared, even if you think their preparations are misplaced or nonsense? People deserve to be incorrect without being judged.
Often because they keep intruding into hobbies I enjoy with a clear misunderstanding of the space or even a hostility to playing within the rules. Examples include people coming into Meshtastic chats and wondering if a 50W amp will help them talk to their buddy on the other wide of the mountain when civil war breaks out ("no, you'll just be ruining the airwaves for everyone else in the mean time, you still won't have line of sight to your friend, and your radio will look like a spotlight in the dark when the National Guard goes fox hunting"), or which ham radio they buy without a license ("no government's gonna tell me what I can say on the air").
If they'd be doing this in private, I couldn't care less. But in these cases, their actions would actively make my hobby less enjoyable, and I'll judge them for that.
Because I want the people around me to be actually prepared. The whole prepper thing is a market targeting a specific kind of man with the fantasy that they are in control when shit hits the fan to the loint some of these men want shit to hit the fan.
In reality far more important than most gear will be a good neighborhood network for example. But that means working on your own character.
I’ll tell you why.. because the whole thing is commercialized, drives fear and doom into people minds then profits off people’s fears by selling media, merch and so on or spreads misinformation. They’ve been around for a while
Hey HN! I got tired of waiting for one particular GitHub Projects feature, so I built my own mini replacement for solo projects. It's a Kanban implementation in a single HTML file that operates out of a single Markdown text file on your local drive.
Rejecting criticism makes systems more fragile.
Of course it's a balance and you also need to nurture new ideas.
reply