Readit NewsWhy? There were other talented people who produced masterful works at an early age. From the same time as this there's a Dürer self-portrait, also aged 12-13:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Portrait_at_the_Age_of_13
> We don't have any really reliable records from that time.
Uh, no. There's no documented attribution of that painting to Michelangelo; that doesn't mean that other things weren't reliably recorded.
Actually at this rate, developers won't be writing code anyways but they're still in a better position to guide the AI.
Knowing the code and knowing how to make the code, or the interface to the code, comprehensible to another user, are different things. Just like with UIs, and the fact that an expert is not necessarily the best teacher.
Anyhow, the age of monumental feats of technical writing is past. Too expensive, and the subject is too volatile for the most part. Economics dictate that we'll have to deal with the cheapest possible docs. We already do.
Privacy concerns notwithstanding, one could argue having LLMs with us every step of the way - coding agents, debugging, devops tools etc. It will be this shared interlocutor with vast swaths of experiential knowledge collected and redistributed at an even larger scale than SO and forum-style platforms allow for.
It does remove the human touch so it's quite a different dynamic and the amount of data to collect is staggering and challenging from a legal point of view, but I suspect a lot of the knowledge used to train LLMs in the next ten years will come from large-scale telemetry and millions of hours in RL self-play where LLMs learn to scale and debug code from fizzbuzz to facebook and twitter-like distributed system.
That might work until an LLM encounters a question it's programmed to regard as suspicious for whatever reason. I recently wanted to exercise an SMTP server I've been configuring, and wanted to do it by an expect script, which I don't do regularly. Instead of digging through the docs, I asked Google's Gemini (whatever's the current free version) to write a bare bones script for an SMTP conversation.
It flatly refused.
The explanation was along the lines "it could be used for spamming, so I can't do that, Dave." I understand the motivation, and can even sympathize a bit, but what are the options for someone who has a legitimate need for an answer? I know how to get one by other means; what's the end game when it's LLMs all the way down? I certainly don't wish to live in such a world.
-L: skip preprocessing the input file. When opening rotated log files with the names like logfile.1, logfile.2... the default preprocessor on some distros will recognize them as man page source and helpfully pipe through nroff. If the file is largish this introduces an annoying pause. Using -L skips all that.
Ctrl-R as the first character of a search string will search for that literal string, not the regular expression. Nice if you have regex metacharacters in the search string and don't want to bother with escaping (and don't need the regex facilities, of course.)
This sounds like an offhand Youtube comment, I'm afraid. Underrated how? Its principal strength, easy embedding with the ability to work as an extension language, is well known in the circles where it matters. The authors never gave an impression that they'd aim to make it a language to bury all other scripting languages, which I find refreshing in the winner-take-all culture of programming language discussion. Lua is modest and works well for what it is. No need to go all grandiose.
> I just wish one of the mainstream browsers actually puts their foot down and starts supporting Lua as scripting language.
I sincerely hope not, that would be a very counterproductive dilution of effort. Browser authors already have their plate full with all other web platform problems.
They should call it "rat" and be done with it.
Besides, "snitch" works for Little Snitch -- I've always found it somehow endearing, although the bare word is unflattering.
I would expect WD-40 to work fairly well because it cleans the chain and gets the filth out of the links, filth is a big part of drive train wear and we really don't need much in the way of lube as long as things are kept clean and rust free so the links move smoothly.
That it does, but it doesn't leave much lubricant behind, which you need for a properly functioning chain. As you know, you want something that will get between the pins and rollers and stay there, minus the grime that would turn it into grinding paste. Which is probably why some people swear by wax, but that sounds like a giant hassle.