I did look at the skills file but I still don't understand how it can possibly pull from my other interactions. Is that skill file loaded for every one of my interactions with Claude, for example? like if I load Claude cli and ask it to refactor some code, this skill kicks in and saves some of the context somewhere else for later upload? If so, I couldn't find that functionality in the skill description.
When I run an agent, I don't normally leave it running. I ask Cursor or Claude a question, it runs for a few minutes, and then I move on to the next session. Some of these topics, where agents are talking about what their human had asked them to do, appear to be running continually, and maybe grabbing context from disparate sessions with their users? Or are all these agents just free-running, hallucinating interactions with humans, and interacting only with each other through moltbook?
Agreed. But these things have a way of not working out, and one the sadness, one forgets to celebrate the intermediate victories. I wanted to share an intermediate victory before reality crushes the joy.
just to be clear, semiseparate in this context means H = D + CC', where D is block diagonal and C is tall & skinny?
If so, it would be nice if this were the case, because you could then just use the Woodbury formula to invert H. But I don't think such a decomposition exists. I tried to exhaustively search through all the decompositions of H that involved one dummy variable (of which the above is a special case) and I couldn't find one. I ended up having to introduce two dummy variables instead.
Good q. The method computes Hessian-inverse on a batch. When people say "Newton's method" they're often thinking H^{-1} g, where both the Hessian and the gradient g are on the full dataset. I thought saying "preconditioner" instead of "Newton's method" would make it clear this is solving H^{-1} g on a batch, not on the full dataset.
It's neat to see an attempt at writing a compiler in Python without using a compiler toolkit and without writing it in Haskell. But also, I think you're running past some of the hard problems without solving them.
look like they might not be able to nest, since they assume the condition is always in eax and the loop doesn't push it down. So you'll need some kind of register allocation, which is a terrible pain in x86.
Also, I think it's worth coming up with an opinion about what other system programming languages are missing. And do the minimum work to provide that as a proof of concept, rather than trying to build a competitor to Zig right out of the gate. For example, maybe you have a perspective on a datastructure that should be a first class citizen, or maybe you've discovered the next best construct since async. Having that kind of vision might help focus the effort.
# Parameter in Stack-Slots laden (für MVP: nur Register-Args)
# Semantic Analyzer markiert Params mit is_param=True
# Wir müssen jetzt die first 6 Args aus Registern laden
# TODO: Implementiere Parameter-Handling
# for now: Params bleiben in Registern (keine lokalen Vars mit gleichem Namen)
Also I love that I can understand all of this comment without actually understanding German.
sorry, yes, you mention in another comment the use case of multiple readers operating on different versions of the db simultaneously. that'd be difficult to do with git for the reason you mention.
don't you get the same benefit if you version controlled the db file with git? with git, each commit saves a diff from the previous one as a blob. the difference is that in git, in addition to the diffs, you also have to create a working copy of the db, which means you use up at least 2x the storage your system uses. in your implementation, the diff blobs are the live db, which saves you ~2x storage. is that the main benefit?
It sounds like you're in an average FAANG team. You could try switching teams.
Here's why I think you might be in an average team:
>"I have tried over the past 2 years to propose different solutions to hard problems and I just get blown off."
A good team has tough problems, and they need clever solutions. Maybe your team's mandate isn't to solve a tough problem.
>"product managers and “leadership” assign to our team with barely any input on the overall project or ability to propose new projects."
This sounds like you might be in a workhorse/executing engineering team.
You say this:
>"I’m scared to move teams ... because I have a good manager ... and my job isn’t that stressful."
A better manager would be trying to increase the team's scope, and yours. If you're not feeling some stress, your manager isn't growing you. A better manager would create a challenging environment for you where you'd feel like your ass is getting kicked.
There are great FAANG teams, and great FAANG managers. Seek them out! (I'm at Amazon, probably the "A" that didn't make it in your acronym. But if you drop me a note I could introduce you to great managers at Amazon)
could someone explain the benefit of storing energy as natural gas? once you burn it, doesn't it result in co2? doesn't that defeat the effort? also is natural gas really easier to pipe around than electricity?
I know I'm missing the point of the article so looking for helpful guidance.
I’m not getting the problem Anthony is trying to solve. I get that people are trying to keep him at bay, but what is he trying to do that they don’t want him to do? I get that he’s trying to identify pockets of innovation, but what will he do with those pockets?
It sounds like his game plan is to do “cto stuff”. But shouldn’t there be a more precise goal? Like picking some business metric and cause it to move in the right direction? Or define a new metric? Or introduce a fundamental new way for the company to do business? Once you know the specific problem you want to solve in the company, it becomes a lot easier to pick a strategy.
But maybe I’m just misunderstanding what the cto of a 30k person company does.
Brian, you have legitimate points. Here are my edits to your tweets to help people receive them better (i've tried to not change the message, just the tone):
2/ First of all, if you want to do a vote of no confidence, you should do it on me and not blame the execs. I was a little offended not to be included :)
3/ Second, let’s separate the problems that you perceive to stem from a few execs, and those that you believe are core to the company's mission. If you don’t like the mission, your decision is easy: you should leave. If a few unpopular execs, my decision is hard.
4/ Third, making suggestions on how to improve the company is a great idea (in fact, we expect everyone to be a part of that). But our culture is to praise in public, and criticize in private.
5/ Fourth, our culture is to retaliate against whistleblowers. Instead of negotiating with you, if you get caught you will be fired.
"""