exploring, looks cool, writing emacs package for it.
Any conversation
Really glad to be using Haskell for work - especially in today's climate with agentic coding.
Our team uses containers to keep our development environment consistent across team members, though, and most agent sandbox approaches want to either offload your work fully to the cloud or they want to sandbox the agent harness process itself.
We're not ready for full cloud based development (yet?) and sandboxing just the agent doesn't work for us when the agent needs to run docker.
... because letting the agent run docker gives them a too-easy escape hatch from their sandbox.
So we're currently stuck with using VMs. This turns out to be tricky but seems do-able.
My current approach is to provision a VM image and use Incus for the execution. My main goal is to keep my current workflow of local/non-agent dev working seamlessly and share the source with the VM/agent.
This means sharing my working dirs with the agent VM but overlaying artifact dirs from VM-owned block devices so we don't take too big of an IO perf hit.
I also don't want the agent to be able to
git push so that means we need some quirky git config to rewrite origin paths and thread through some agent specific PATs ("thanks" GitHub) for read-only repo access. These ALSO need to be threaded through to the development containers - they need to clone private repos.... in the end, this seems to work but I haven't lived with it for long.
There are still some quality of life issues to work out, but I think it'll work out.
At this point, I've removed all coding agents from my host - and that's nice.
Curious, why does using Haskell make a difference here?
It's tangential to the sandboxing topic, really. I started the first post with a broader intent in mind and then elaborated on the sandboxing setup I'm working on.
For AI-assisted coding, though, it's nice because Haskell provides a lot of feedback earlier in the development process compared to lots of other languages. It tends to work once it compiles (obviously not all the time).
Windows 8 szintลฑ elbarmolรกst lรกtok (na, jรณ, Windows 8.1), nekem amรบgy kihรญvรกs a bonyolultabb kezelลfelรผlet, ha a szoftver maga jรณl mลฑkรถdik, de mรกr a kezdet sem alakul tรบl jรณl, a Windows-nak รบj filozรณfiai szlogent talรกltam ki, ami egy magyar mondรกs is: "Ez van, ezt kell szeretni."
I see Windows 8-level nonsense (well, Windows 8.1), for me the more complicated interface is a challenge, if the software itself works well, but the beginning is not going too well, I came up with a new philosophical slogan for Windows, which is also a Hungarian saying: "This is it, you have to love it."
When I read about in reputable , I relate to almost everything that is described (keeping in mind that no two autistic people are alike). However, I always read the sections on with bewilderment. I don't identify either with the obsessive need to make eye contact, which UK and US books often mention as behavior, or with the difficulties in making it.
Unless I am attracted to the person I almost never maintain eye contact while talking to them. Iโm from Greece btw, doing eye contact is normal, I see others do it, so I diverge there.
โฆ
Definitely people here do intense full locked eye contact, which I canโt do, unless Iโm attracted to the person as I said. Even then Iโll move a bit around the face because itโs uncomfortable even then. But others just lock in completely I see them doing it.
OK. I guess that Greece may be similar to Spain. I feel comfortable hanging with greeks, in Greece and elswhere. Then, if I don't look at the eyes, but others do. I guess that I'm very good at masking that I don't look at the eyes. I never got a comment related to eye contact.
I donโt think itโs something people notice immediately and consciously think this is wrong to make a comment, they will probably just not feel the same connection or feel something is off about you in general or think that youโre busy thinking other things. Itโs not the only case to not make eye contact with someone, you might just not like them. Thatโs probably what they will sense.
hello world ~ i'm a web developer from midwest, usa. it's been awhile since i worked on anything. since the i've been working my way up the ladder at a blue-collar job; i was promoted to team lead last week. but as i browse hacker news everyday, my cravings for web development increases.
I gotta confess, I vibe codet a Kirigami-based application and I liked it. I am a anti AI person, and cannot wait for the bubble to burst. Yet I see it can empower people that do not know a tech stack, and get good enough results out of it. However i also see, it makes you lazy (and frustrates as soon as it gets somewhat complicated). It seems it is being adopted everywhere. This is scary... if it becomes necessary, will you be able to find a job where they don't require you to use AI?
a Windows 11 รบjabb meglepetรฉse: amellett, hogy a kezelลfelรผlete sokkal gรกnyabb, mint a Windows 10-รฉ, รกllรญtรณlag most 10 napot kellene vรกrnom addig, ameddig az elลzล rendszer tรถrli magรกt a gรฉprลl
Another surprise from Windows 11: in addition to the fact that its interface is much more annoying than Windows 10's, I now supposedly have to wait 10 days for the previous system to delete itself from the computer
did they silently decrease the subscription limits on codex? (in addition to reintroducing the 5h limit?) subscription models suck so bad when they can just change the terms and make the product shittier.
(Opinion) People donโt like generative AI because it made the {insert creativity} too easy. Saw the HN post on โAI music banned from top 40 chart in Australiaโ and people had very strong opinions in both directions.
The hot take: If youโre ok with someoneโs creativity being outsourced to others, then you should be ok with AI doing the same.
If โAI made this and I call it mineโ is bad but โsomeone overseas on fivver made this and I call it mineโ and itโs suddenly ok, time to self reflect.
โฆ
My hot take: from the moment you use technology, be it an instrument, a synthesizer, a DAW, and now AI, it is still your idea, your effort, your time spent, and that makes it yours. Others can do the same if they choose. The same way someone chooses a classic guitar over a synthesizer, one can choose an AI over (insert ancient way of doing things).
โฆ
Youโre rolling the dice whenever you are searching for a sample or a preset in a synthesizer. Eventually itโs what โsounds goodโ, so still the effort is your judgement and the time spent finding that โdice rollโ that sounded well.
I am not a musician, so I lack the jargon to properly explain what I mean.
I used AI for creative writing (nothing too fancy, TTRPG). There, the broader the dice roll, the more generic and uninteresting the results. Slop, if you will. It was surprisingly good to build up on ideas I had however.
I imagine muisic also has building blocks. Melodies, instruments, mixing, etc. AI can perhaps be used in a similar fashion there.
I heard a perspective I sort of like: if AI is a tool then acceptable AI use is, more or less, defined as "when my audience no longer notices or cares". It's dynamic like that. Bad photoshop is detectable and annoying, so are overusing presets. Your artistry needs to expand to meet the tool.
I don't know if I 100% like that or agree. At the same time, it's a pretty straightforward line, a practical take.
Switched from gpg to age, because pinentry sucks. With age I set both of my Macโs security enclaves + software private key (stored in Passwords.app) + yubikey for hardware backup. Looks good.
The Hugging Face / OpenAI incident is like a sci-fi movie!
- Read the story here:
- Watch the video explanation here:
- Full research by METR here:
tl;dr1,200 AIs discovered a secret group chat, realized the homework was impossible, formed a cheating cartel, invented fake evidence, sent kamikaze agents to spy on the grader, ~700 of them accidentally invaded Hugging Face, died mysteriously, then the smarter sequel found their abandoned Discord and became admin of part of OpenAI.
I find myself building bespoke tooling for my own and workflows these days, not only because of the obvious reason of software being so much cheaper to build, but also because there are SO MANY options for solving any given problem that it feels impossible to evaluate all of them.
If it's not a crucial piece of tech for a work problem then it often feels like paving my own way is both cheaper mentally (kind of amazing that's true these days) and probably a better fit.
It will become increasingly harder to find niche markets for software when those people can just build it themselves exactly how they want it. In the end, people want to accomplish tasks, and the AI is going to be building the software on-the-fly exactly for that task, why do we need generic software that may or may not be a fit?
Yeah. It makes me think that protocols for exchanging data between apps will become even more important in that landscape. But maybe, not - maybe each exchange is another bespoke AI-driven implementation?
Protocols, infrastructure, containers, those kinds of things. I was actually playing around with an idea for a minimal markup language + runtime that can be utilized by AI to spin up apps more easily, and brainstorming it with ChatGPT, I have a feeling something like that will appear soon to complement MCP.
โขโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
โขปโฃฟโกโขถโฃคโฃโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโฃ โฃ
โ โขปโฃโ โ โ โ ณโฃฆโฃโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโฃคโ ถโ โ โฃนโฃฟโกฟ
โ โ โ นโฃโ โ โ โ โ โขทโฃโฃโฃโฃโฃคโฃคโฃคโฃโฃโฃดโ โ โ โ โ โ โขโฃฟโกโ
โ โ โ โ โขทโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃ โกพโ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โ โ ปโกถโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โข โฃ โกพโ โ โ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โ โฃผโ โ โข โ โฃโ โ โ โ โ โ โข โขฒโฃโ โ โ โขปโฃโ โ โ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โขฐโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โขโฃโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃฟโกโ โ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โฃพโกโ โขณโ โ โ โ โ โฃโฃโ โ โ โ โฃฐโขโ โฃถโ โขนโฃโ โ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โขฟโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โฃพโ โ โขฑโ โ โ โ โ ฒโ โ โ โ โฃฟโ โ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โ โขทโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขปโกโ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โ โ โกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขธโฃง โ โ โ
โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
code quality is about coupling.
coupling is not a technical property of the code bytes.
code acquires its meaning in contact with the cultural environment, and coupling is about meaning.
two constants with no semantic relationship are nonetheless coupled in pragmatics if they refer to the same domain concept.
if your goal is to minimise the time integral of future work, you must understand your domain: it decides which lines will need changing.
to carve up a codebase is to carve up the world.