Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | SquareWheel's commentslogin

I know that an uncommon name needed to be chosen, but something about the hyphenated /.well-known/ just turns me off.

I'd have really preferred another term: registered, reserved, defined, meta -- or really anything else.


Yep, they solve the same problem. I built my blog on Harry Roberts' ITCSS paradigm some ten years ago, and found it extremely easy to migrate to cascade layers. They're an underutilized solution to addressing growing specificity.

They're admittedly less useful if you're already using component-based design. That's closer to something like BEM in hyper-targeting each element.


Personally, I forget syntax all the time. There's always a warm up period after I switch languages, and it takes me longer to be start writing good, idiomatic code.

Like sure, I can probably write some python, but will it be pythonic? I might still be Java-minded for a while, trying to OOP my way into solutions.

Earlier today I needed to write some PHP and couldn't remember if it used length, count, or size. I had to look it up. I've been doing this for 20 years.


Same, I can't pass any test that relies on getting syntax correct. If you want me to fizzbuzz on a whiteboard in a language I've been writing dozens or more of lines of per day for a year up to and including the day before, and require that I don't mess up the syntax, I reckon I've got a coin-flip chance of passing at best (meanwhile, sure, of course the actual logic of fizzbuzz isn't tricky for me)

I once got the method invocation syntax wrong for PHP in an interview. I'd written thousands of lines of PHP and had most-recently written some the week before.

This, despite starting off my programming journey in editors with no hinting or automatic correction. If anything, I've gotten even worse about remembering syntax as I've gotten better at the rest of the job, but I was never great at it.

I rely on surrounding code to remind me of syntax and the exact names of basic things constantly. On a blank screen without syntax hints and autocompletion, or a blank whiteboard, I'm guaranteed to look like a moron if you don't let me just write pseudocode.

Been paid to write code for about 25 years. This has never been any amount of a problem on the job but is sometimes a source of stress in interviews and has likely lost me an offer or two (most of the sources of stress in an interview have little to do with the job, really)


Right, so I wonder, have you noticed or found or experienced any better interview processes? I wonder how we can't just filter out companies that require us to do this sort of hand waving and party tricking behavior or like "because we can't figure out a better way to do this". I reckon maybe a simple filter statement before any interviews, to the recruiters "Hey I don't do xyzzy" would help - though working on the tuning of the language.

I've also started requiring minimum of $300/hr compensation for interviews of my time, newly, so far no success though I'm fine with dying on that bridge or requiring at least a new type of interview process.


Right, but on interviews I've been on it's never the goal to test _exact syntax knowledge_. It's not hard to distinguish between someone who just can't program vs. someone who has knowledge of many languages and has a bit of a mish-mash in their head in an interview setting.

There are people who just can't program for whatever reason, regardless of whether they could previously. And they constantly try to interview at a programming position.


Sure, and Microsoft acquired DOS, and Adobe acquired Photoshop. At a certain point though, after 20+ years of development, you need to give some credit to the new owners for making it into what it is today.


> Did vibe coding the business page inject it into ChatGPT's training data?

No, at least not directly. Inference does not train models. It is possible that OpenAI may separately collect the chat data, clean it, and feed it back into the model for future iterations. Or they could have extracted URLs for future indexing.

More likely though, I suspect, is your site just managed to be indexed naturally, and LLMs are very efficient at matching obscure data to relevant queries.


Interesting. Maybe someone could run bot farms that ask variants of the same question and subtly nudge the model by replying reasons why the model's recommended service A is inferior to service B. Or other forms of adversarial question answers sessions.


This is a pretty banal comment at this point. Open source is the term used in the LLM community. It's common and understood. Nobody is going to release petabytes of copyrighted training data, so the distinction between open source vs weights is a rather pointless one.


First you steal all the code, then you want to redefine the term? Is it never enough with you AI guys? Where's the humility, where's the good?


Sorry, too busy "stealing code" to answer right now.


lol


its still a pointed one.

"open source" keeps being redefined by people with wealth and power to restrict our computing rights.

eventually its just gonna be "proprietary microsoft code that runs on microsoft servers, but you can see a portion of the results"


"Open source" as a term has evolved due to its success. It wasn't some malicious attempt at redefining things from the technical elite. It was a natural shifting of language, as happens with all words, as it entered more common usage.

It's entirely reasonable that this colloquial understanding would be applied to new categories such as AI models. I'm sure it'll be applied to many other things that don't fit the OSD either. That's just language for you.


Tell this to the Allen project, Apertus Project, SmoLLM, etc, etc, etc


Single Page Applications use the History API to create a working back/forward history within the SPA. This will cause you to navigate away on use, and potentially lose data.


Why don't they just use # hash urls for their in-SPA page urls instead? That's what Elm and Elixir LiveView both do.


That sounds like a design failure.


Well, yes, but that's why it's behind an about:config flag and users should not enable it without understanding its effects.


It's not, I don't know why you'd think that.


Chromium does include an ad blocker for "intrusive ads". ie. Those using many resources, flashing, auto-playing sounds, or otherwise behaving badly.

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/7632919


Manifest 3 explicitly enables ad blocking through the declarativeNetRequest API. It's trivial to do so, and many blockers exist in the Chrome Web Store.


Removing film crew, boom mics, and missed props from a scene would surely be useful to studios. It may even enable some shots that previously would have been impossible due to the positioning of cameras, etc.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: