You’ve got nine years of experience, so work your network and get referrals. It’s very hard to get mid-career jobs through the front door; most people want someone they trust to vouch for you.

I've tried that. They don't have anything for me.

Bunch of Balkan and Turkish music has quarter tones too. (And you’re forgetting KG and LW…)

> (And you’re forgetting KG and LW…)

Now I'm only replying because I'll take any opportunity to prop King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, which is the third item of the original three dot points.

KG = KG and LW = KGatLW = King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard.

I don't like all of KGatLW's music but, as someone who is also a big fan of Frank Zappa's extensive corpus of works, I love their versatility and their willingness to be versatile.

One of my favourite performances of KG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI_XU1iKRRc (I can't believe this is from ten years ago!)

When you’re staffing work to a junior, though, often it’s the opposite.

IME "don't ask questions and just do a bunch of crap based on your first guess that we then have to correct later after you wasted a week" is one of the most common junior-engineer failure modes and a great way for someone to dead-end their progression.

So you are saying they are trying for the whole Artificial Intern vibe ?

The author knew fine that it was a knob joke (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26743882). In this specific case, play stupid games, get stupid prizes; no-one is asking Le Coq Sportif to rebrand or your local bistro to stop serving coq au vin.

Calling him stupid is really elevating the debate. I agree having to bow exclusively to American sensitivity without any reciprocity is infuriating.

He did a stupid thing. Doesn’t make him stupid, but the action is. (Also this is a stock phrase.)

Completely unrelated. Recursive Language Models are just "what if we replaced putting all the long text into the context window with a REPL which lets you read parts of the context through tool calls and launch partitioned subagents", ie divide-and-conquer applied to attention space.

My first thought was also that this is also reminiscent of RLMs - they are ought to solve the same problem as far as my understanding goes. Authors say "Self-improving AI systems aim to reduce reliance on human engineering by learning to improve their own learning and problem-solving processes" which is what RLM is trying to solve so my understanding is that this work shares the same goal but takes a different approach. E.g. instead of using REPL-like environment with multiple (or even single) agents, which is what RLMs are doing, they suggest using agents that can modify themselves. I didn't read the paper so I don't know how this really works but it caught my attention so if you could share more insights I would appreciate it.

They also tend to imply symbolic recursion which seems to be the biggest deal out of everything by a wide margin.

When you can nest 10+ agents deep and guarantee you will get back home without losing any data in any of the stack frames, the ability to chunk through complex problems goes up dramatically.

You’re painting an EPP/ECR initiative as left wing? That’s inconsistent with the facts.

He's rambling about "left-wing DNA" in the Verfassungsschutz, who is famously quite good at turning a blind eye to right wing extremists. Probably because AfD got rightfully classified as far-right-extremists.

So to him they are probably left-wing.

> In one of my vibe coded personal projects (Python and Rust project) I'm actually getting rid of most dependencies and vibe coding replacements that do just what I need. I think that we'll see far fewer dependencies in future projects.

No free lunch. LLMs are capable of writing exploitable code and you don’t get notifications (in the eg Dependabot sense, though it has its own problems) without audits.

My vibe coded personal projects don't have the source code available for attackers to target specifically.

It might surprise you to learn that a large number of software exploits are written without the attacker having direct access to the program's source code. In fact, shocking as it may seem today, huge numbers of computers running the Windows operating system and Internet Explorer were compromised without the attackers ever having access to the source code of either.

I'm actually curious if the windows source code leak of 2004 increased the number of exploits against windows? I'm not sure if it included internet explorer. I remember that windows 2000 was included back then.

You don't need open source access to be exploitable or exploited

Because it's inordinately more expensive.

We're computer people, so we have a good analogy here; the COVID vaccine did speculative branch prediction. They basically operated _as if_ they would get approval at all stages where they could, parallelizing much more of the process at the cost of a _very_ expensive branch fail if something went wrong.

And Glow.

If you know what you're doing, you can achieve good results with more or less any tool, including a properly-wielded coding agent. The problem is people who _don't_ know what they're doing.