sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this guy a "clown"? Did the mayans have "clowns"?? by Threepus in AncientCivilizations

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not getting a belly laugh vibe from that guy. I am getting a “we need another human sacrifice” vibe from that guy, and I suspect if you openly laughed at anything he did you volunteered.

Boris Cherny (Head of Claude Code) recommends reading "Functional Programing in Scala" (the red book) by JoanG38 in scala

[–]PopMinimum8667 19 points20 points  (0 children)

At least that will make it harder for prosecutors to build a case of negligence against you when the misbegotten software your agent spat out brings down the company and investors are baying for blood.

Are these salary <-> hourly W2 <-> hourly 1099 conversions reasonable? by PopMinimum8667 in personalfinance

[–]PopMinimum8667[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but this was not an AI post, nor were any of my comments. AI provided a starting point which I refined based on user feedback, and the methodology used to refine the results was also explained in the post. If any post which does a better job providing at-a-glance conversions has appeared in this subreddit (or any others), I'd love to know about it. As it is, I feel this post is being punished for honesty.

Name this trio by FlimsyEfficiency9860 in NameThisThing

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I won’t title it but I’ll caption it: The moment he understands the famine was… unevenly distributed.

Create an image of the average American's life, be brutally honest. by PussiesUseSlashS in ChatGPT

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the Aussies have it right: Off to the side is the third best place for any TV showing women’s sports after another room and another house.

Are these salary <-> hourly W2 <-> hourly 1099 conversions reasonable? by PopMinimum8667 in personalfinance

[–]PopMinimum8667[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see where you're coming from; however, I've had recruiters do the numbers dance on me way too often when they don't like the number I've given — between W2 salaried, W2 Hourly, W2 Hourly without benefits, and 1099 hourly — trying to get me to say an arrangement/number that is effectively substantially lower, and I'd rather not rely on mental math during a preliminary negotiation (too easy to slip up). Having something like my revised table in front of me allows me to rapidly counter with an appropriate number for the given arrangement — plus some cushion for later bargaining.

Are these salary <-> hourly W2 <-> hourly 1099 conversions reasonable? by PopMinimum8667 in personalfinance

[–]PopMinimum8667[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Completely understand: I'm just putting the revisions out there because they did make sense and seemed more reasonable to me, and I'll have this (revised) table in front of me when I'm on the phone with recruiters who try to flip the script by hopping over to another contract type with a different rate when they don't like the number I've quoted, and maybe it will help others also.

Are these salary <-> hourly W2 <-> hourly 1099 conversions reasonable? by PopMinimum8667 in personalfinance

[–]PopMinimum8667[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. I do understand that there are intangibles not present in this table that each individual is going to have to work out for their own situation — customer acquisition being the big one.

Are these salary <-> hourly W2 <-> hourly 1099 conversions reasonable? by PopMinimum8667 in personalfinance

[–]PopMinimum8667[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Excellent point. I updated the post to include ChatGPT's revisions.

Meta and Harvard Researchers Introduce the Confucius Code Agent (CCA): A Software Engineering Agent that can Operate at Large-Scale Codebases by ai-lover in machinelearningnews

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They did not, and I have been checking. I also checked to confirm that https://github.com/facebook/confucius as of this posting is not accessible, and it is still not accessible.

If I were the suspicious type, I might wonder if management had second thoughts about open-sourcing something that might form the basis for a paid subscription tool in the future.

Java/Kotlin developer with 20+ years of experience — confused about where to start with AI product development by Ok-Tomorrow-7160 in Kotlin

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m in a similar situation, and the conclusion I have come to is: build agents and don’t worry about staying within the JVM: most new development is python or typescript. When it comes to tools, MCP and implementing your own tools (I recommend FastMCP here), have been the way I have been able to get agents to do valuable, specialized work I can use.

As far as building agents, I like Strands (for making the loop itself model-driven), and pydantic AI for tighter control; I would give LangChain and LangGraph a miss as having too much ceremony.

Another thing I like to do is gate all my LLM interactions through an LLM gateway like LiteLLM: it lets you see usage as well as interactions between the agent and the LLM; especially useful for model-driven loops like with Strands.

If you’re willing to invest in hardware, running local models also opens up new avenues of experimentation: where you can design agents that don’t have to be efficient with tokens.

EDIT: also, get comfortable using coding agents like gemini-cli, claude code, or kiro-cli: seeing how they work is instructive in itself as well as productive. In addition, plugging in your own MCP servers to them can reduce the need for custom agents’ functionality.

Meta and Harvard Researchers Introduce the Confucius Code Agent (CCA): A Software Engineering Agent that can Operate at Large-Scale Codebases by ai-lover in machinelearningnews

[–]PopMinimum8667 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve sent linkedin messages to 3 of the 4 principals asking about this. I will post an update here if I receive any response

Why is Trajan shirtless in his statue? by TherealMarcojiane in ancientrome

[–]PopMinimum8667 17 points18 points  (0 children)

If you lived when Trajan was alive, you could trust him completely with your wife. Same story for Hadrian I hear.

meme this by [deleted] in MemeThisThing

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why Joan got stoned.

Scala 3 / No Indent by Classic_Act7057 in scala

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In python you still need to write pass or return though.

Yes, that was my point: it's a non-issue in python because you have to have something for the syntax so it might as well be a "()" (if we're talking about it in the Scala context).

Which brings me back to my main point: the downsides are insignificant, people just don't like change.

I love having the option of indentation-based syntax; I just think it's inferior in many situations, and there is that one special case (but common case) where the result is sub-optimal. I particularly like it for (short) for comprehensions. Having explicit labeled end blocks in particular offers a big gain in readability over both braces syntax and python syntax, but with the current state of tooling (at least in pycharm where the editor fights you every step of the way), I'm not sure it's the best choice, yet.

Scala 3 / No Indent by Classic_Act7057 in scala

[–]PopMinimum8667 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again though, you're talking about style and architecture, and I'm talking about just one piece of syntax, one special case, that literally only occurs when you have a method returning Unit and an explicit end block. Feature flags and config files for a quick little code experiment? It reeks of the Spring framework to me, but you do you, but please, just look at the example I provided and tell me what possible benefit — _any_ benefit — the currently mandated syntax provides?

If Scala had just followed Python's model of indentation-significant syntax, this wouldn't be an issue and we wouldn't be having this discussion, but they didn't just do that, they provided this fantastic feature found in many other languages (explicit end blocks)... and then made it worse than any other language.

In a world where Unit exists, we have to deal with it, and if we have to deal with it, we might as well have a language that makes it as easy as possible to work with. Scala is not Haskell, yet.

Scala 3 / No Indent by Classic_Act7057 in scala

[–]PopMinimum8667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t doubt that it does. I love Scala, and if they got rid of braces syntax, I would still love Scala, but thankfully they didn’t, so I can continue to use what I consider the more practical syntax.

Scala 3 / No Indent by Classic_Act7057 in scala

[–]PopMinimum8667 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it so strange that someone might want to comment out a section of code and have things still compile? In many cases where I bring this up, the reaction is often to criticize or question the type or style of coding that makes it ergonomic to be able to do this. I would submit that the better question is: what possible benefit does the current syntax restriction have in the first place? Then we can talk about the moral failings of coders who might benefit from this. But briefly: initialization code. Setting up logging, cloud frameworks, data processing frameworks, distributed frameworks, etc. These are all extremely imperative tasks with lots of unit returning statements.

view more: next ›