You need to define how much muscle mass you expect to lose. The entire idea behind the bulk/cut cycle is that you want to net gain muscle after a full diet cycle.
It's also not borderline impossible to maintain the majority of your muscle mass, but it depends on how you eat and train. We don't know enough about the person above's diet, training, current body composition, etc. to say anything for certain.
I think the gist of what we're debating is principle of least privilege - give the LLM the fewest privileges needed to accomplish the task and no more, that way you avoid issues like leaking credentials.
The approach you're proposing is that with a well designed MCP server, you can limit the permissions for your agent to only interacting with that MCP server, essentially limiting what it can do.
My argument is that you can accomplish the identical thing with an agent by limiting access to only invoking a specific CLI tool, and nothing more.
Both of our approaches accomplish the same thing. I'm just arguing that an MCP server is not required to accomplish it.
The same permissions model that works for other tools. In Claude Code terms, allow Bash(kubectl:*). Deny Read(**/.kube/**). That allows kubectl access without allowing the tool to read ~/.kube directly.
Your argument is the same for an MCP server - auth is stored somewhere on disk, what's to stop it from reading that file? The answer is the same as above.
How so? Let's use a common CLI tool as an example - kubectl. Config is generally stored in ~/.kube in a variety of config files. Running `kubectl config view` already redacts the auth information from the config. LLMs could invoke `kubectl` commands without having knowledge of how it's authenticated.
Can't recall if I played on your servers, but I know I played an unreasonable amount of CS 1.6, including on a bunch of WC3 servers when I wasn't playing on ESEA.
If you happen to remember someone going by `nJs` - hi!
The point about coverage results is an important one to understand. Something that I like to say when discussing this with other folks is that while high code coverage does not tell you that you have a good test suite, low code coverage does tell you that you have a poor one. It's one metric amongst many that should be used to measure your code quality, it's not the end-all-be-all.
There's another alternative - debug in CI itself. There's a few ways that you can pause your CI at a specific step and get a shell to do some debugging, usually via SSH. I've found that to be the most useful.
I generally would agree, but be careful. You don't know what you don't know, and that could be dangerous. As one example, I would guess that the vast majority of folks are not familiar with what an MWBC is and how they work, however they're extremely common, especially in older buildings. As another example, most folks have never heard of box fill and will just try to shove wires into a box until it fits.
I'm not an electrician and would definitely encourage folks to learn to do this work themselves, but be careful and if you encounter something that is not familiar, pause and learn until you understand what you're looking at, even if that means putting it back the way it was for a bit and doing some research.
Random aside, were you at KubeCon a couple years ago chatting with Sugu at the whole conference party in San Diegi? If so, hi! I was crazy out of my depth, but listening to folks that know this stuff better than I ever will was one of the highlights of that conference
Agreed, was typing a similar comment, however yours expressed that idea better than mine.
Consider that this pattern contains N different properties that renders N different components (plus the default case), I don't know why you would want to put this into one component rather than having the consumer select the right one themselves. This even introduces the possibility of bugs - what happens if a consumer passes two sets of properties (which admittedly could be somewhat prevented by Typescript)? I don't really see the benefits of this approach for this particular example.
Not only that, but it really illustrates that even well-known, famous engineers can start contributing to a project with simple pull requests that just rename variables or add comments to code for clarity.
Not every pull request needs to be introducing complex/intricate code, and yet it still has value to the project (and the community).
It's not just the raw size of the image, but also about what the image includes; a smaller image often reduces the potential attack surface because vulnerable things just aren't there.
That's one of the major rationales behind the distroless images. Being space optimized is just a really nice side effect.
I agree. While you can accomplish some really interesting things with Proxy, I think that this article presents some poor examples that are actively harmful. I don't expect `delete` to be O(N) (actually worse if you consider the `ownKeys` implementation. I don't expect setting a property (sort) to invoke an expensive sorting operation. The list keeps going.
While I appreciate what the author is trying to accomplish, I think this is an example of what not to do as far as code is concerned.
Most of my practical usage of Proxies to date have been limited to some debugging tools that I wrote for AngularJS to help detect property changes that occur outside of a digest cycle. Don't think I've had any use cases that I've shipped to production code yet, though I believe Vue is considering using proxies for their reactivity model in the future to avoid the need for `Vue.get` and `Vue.set` for previous unknown properties or deletions.
What you're saying is that comparing the existing build time to the new one, the existing one is about 70% slower. You can also phrase it as comparing the new build time to the existing one, it's about 42% faster.
Both are true statements, however people generally like to discuss how much improved the new releases are versus how much worse the old ones are.
Fun fact, it's important to understand that relationship in other areas as well like the stock market; if your holdings lose 50% of their value, they then need to increase by 100% for you to be back neutral :)
This right here is why I'm a large proponent of using ML/AI for computer assisted diagnosis. Unlike a doctor, a computer won't forget about a possible diagnosis.
I'm not saying to replace doctors with ML, but it seems like a great opportunity to provide a list of potential illnesses with associated confidence %s for the doctor to then follow up as potential leads.
Absolutely! I come from a historically Microsoft shop, and the lack of this was by far the biggest barrier when initially learning PostgresSQL since I was still in the mindset of designing stuff as I would in Sql Server.
It's also not borderline impossible to maintain the majority of your muscle mass, but it depends on how you eat and train. We don't know enough about the person above's diet, training, current body composition, etc. to say anything for certain.