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

We have "part time" as well, but it's different from zero hours. Part timers are usually (AFAIK) salaried employees that work a fixed <1 FTE (but not zero) and paid pro rata, with the usual statutory benefits such as holiday entitlement, pension, etc. You _could_ work multiple PT positions, if you could get them to line up and your employment contracts say it's fine.

Zero hours, to my understanding, is different: I'm not sure what statutory benefits you're entitled to, but yes, I believe you can be signed up to many zero hour contracts and it's up to you whether you take a job with (in theory) no repercussions if you choose not to.


I’m the author — shameless self-promotion, on my behalf, I’m afraid — AMA :)


A chilling vision of the future, where phone books and checkbooks still exist ;)

I have the impression that nanotechnology was very in vogue for science fiction around the late-80s and early-90s…and yet, these days, it’s seemingly disappeared; both as a sci-fi trope and, AFAIK, an area of industrial/medical R&D. Why is that? Did it just atrophy, perhaps combined with unmet expectations, or did we discover some limit that makes the technology infeasible?


It’s not. It’s been through several editing rounds. (I was one of the editors.) In theory, we don’t have a problem with AI generated content if it meets our high editorial requirements, but all Tweag technical blogs go through a rigorous, manual review and editing process to keep standards high.


As I've read through the post, seeing phrases like "Why this matters for performance", usage of em-dashes and lists/bullet points, screams AI written to me. I appreciate you saying it wasn't, but such is the fate of who wrote this to write like LLMs do nowadays. I also liked to use em-dashes and bullet lists but am consciously avoiding them now.


I interviewed a guy from Microsoft who was working on AI, and he literally speaks like this.

Like, using the words "leverage", "matters for...", "as for", and so on. And you could almost hear him doing the bullet points.

When you work with AI a lot, it changes your vocabulary.


That's absurd emdash I work with AI constantly and have noticed no such durable lexical shift.


Didn’t D get an ownership model, a la Rust’s affine types, relatively recently?


I don't think so, but they are working towards it.

The big news is that this will cover the GC cases too, not only the manual memory management.


Yeah, I do this too: The `--onto` solution feels a bit too magical at times and an interactive rebase is pretty clear about what's happening.


Add `--update-refs` to your interactive rebase and it will give you an easy line to know how many commits to drop because it will add an `update-ref` line for the old branch. You can just easily delete everything up to and including that `update-ref` line and don't have to manually pull up a git log of the other branch to remember which commits already merged.

(Plus, of course, if you have multiple branches stacked, `--update-refs` makes it easier to update all of them if you start from the outermost branch.)


Nice; thanks :) I usually squash-merge. Does that break this workflow?


Depends on how fast you delete merged branches?

I picked up `--update-refs` to not lose my mind working in squash merge repos. I much prefer merge commits. I often make good, well documented commits and I like having access to the original commits if I need them, so when in a squash merge repo I become a branch hoarder renaming merged branches with a `zoo/` prefix (to drop them low in sort order, among other reasons it is name `zoo/`).

I will often keep experiment branches around and `--update-refs` helps me manage that because if I see commits that might update-ref a `zoo/` branch I know to drop them from the experiment branch.

All of that discovery of already merged commits would be automatic/cheap in rebases with merge commits. I was very frustrated before discovering `--update-refs`. I'm still often frustrated with squash merging, but keeping a large `zoo/` and having `--update-refs` is extra work that almost replicates the experience of just using merge commits in the first place. I don't know why so many think squash merge workflows are "simpler".


Neat :) When I was a teenager, some 25+ years ago, I wrote a chaotic attractor visualiser like this — but only in 2D — and it occurred to me, “What if instead of visualising it, I rendered it to audio?” I don’t remember the details: I think frequency was correlated with polar angle and amplitude to magnitude. It forced me to learn how to write WAV format — which was my first introduction to endianness — but the result wasn’t completely inaudible! A bit like the sound effects for computers in old sci-fi movies; random(ish) but not discordant beeps and boops!


Along these lines there are at least two modules that I know of in Eurorack focused on strange attractors, and they're both a LOT of fun adding this kind of unpredictable-but-cyclical movement to your sounds:

- Hypster by Nonlinear Circuits (https://modulargrid.net/e/nonlinearcircuits-ian-fritz-s-hyps...)

- Orbit 3 by Joranalogue (https://modulargrid.net/e/joranalogue-audio-design-orbit-3)


I've done this in my Claude settings, but it still doesn't seem that keen on following it:

> Please be measured and critical in your response. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I highly doubt everything I say is “brilliant” or “astute”, etc.! I prefer objectivity to sycophancy.


Remove everything after .... 'in your response' and you will likely get better results.


> I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I highly doubt everything I say is “brilliant” or “astute”, etc.!

Is this part useful as instruction for a model? Seems targeted to a human. And even then I'm not sure how useful it would be.

The first and last sentence should suffice, no?


I wonder if asking it to respond in the style of Linus Torvalds would be an improvement.


Too much context tokens.


I seem to remember a similar Star Trek episode; DS9, IIRC.


"playing god", s2e17


I remember that, and the enormous plot hole that they could move the thing in a transporter!


I have a similar problem: For purely vanity reasons, I have a .co e-mail. Whenever giving it over the phone, I say something like "blah blah blah, dot co; no UK, just dot co". So far this has worked, but -- along with my difficult to spell domain -- I somewhat regret my decision!


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

Search: