I don’t agree with her stance, but it’s absurd to call standing in the sidewalk “disorderly conduct.” I hope the judge sees it that way too and dismisses the charge.

Standing in the sidewalk, and refusing to get out of the way of another sidewalk user.

I mean, I could block a wheelchair user by standing in a cut-out, too. Is that OK?

A wheelchair user is a person. Uber’s property is not.

They're both classified as pedestrians under Pennsylvania law.

There are no self-driving wheelchairs, let alone ones driving outside.

And in what world is it possibly driving around empty? Where's the owner, crawling around on the floor for fun?

There may be no self-driving wheelchairs today, but they will probably exist in a year or two. If/when they do exist, and a self-driving wheelchair were returning to its owner's home after being repaired or tuned up, would it be OK for a pedestrian to block its path, since it's not human nor currently carrying a human?

No there won’t be. They have vans that drop them off for people already.

And just to humor your ridiculous argument: yes it’s okay to do that. Stop wasting the little space there actually is for pedestrians with this unnecessary garbage.

It might be immoral, but certainly not illegal. But, what if the person it was driving to was planning to use it to commit crimes?! Then would it be okay?

And what if Superman was needed to save the world but he was immobilised by a chunk of kryptonite and this selfish protester was blocking the self-motorised claw machine that he’d reprogram (well, his agents would reprogram) into an improvised kryptonite removing device?

Just because something is physically on the sidewalk doesn't mean it is a "sidewalk user".

If you ask me that thing is an autonomous motor vehicle, and as such belongs on the road and its use of the sidewalk is illegal. Just like it would be if its larger Waymo cousin tried to drive there.

Besides, that robot is also blocking and refusing to go out of the way of the human. There are no laws regulating who has to yield on a sidewalk, so good luck figuring our which one is in the wrong.

Wrong. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.001.00...

> "Pedestrian." Any of the following:

(1) An individual afoot.

(2) An individual with a mobility-related disability on a self-propelled wheelchair or an electrical mobility device operated by and designated for the exclusive use of an individual with a mobility-related disability.

(3) A personal delivery device.

And California has a law declaring that bees are fish.

Just because you legislate something doesn't make it true, and the law can be changed at any time.

It makes it true in court, which is the only thing that matters for this discussion.

You learn something new every day.

Is there a source for the claim that the post was removed per a request from Adobe? I don’t see any pinned comment from a moderator…?

Cursor shows “pushes per minute” while Anthropic shows “merges per day.” You can’t directly compare those and say Cursor’s system is more performant. Claude agents could be pushing a similar throughput of changesets into Scion, while some merge agent regularly takes batches and merges them into the trunk.

You would need 864 pushes per merge for the Anthropic version to be operating at a higher scale.

Anyway, Anthropic seems able to do exactly one thing well: train a frontier model. Their other software seems like garbage. OpenAI seems to be following a similar trend lately too.

I wonder if this mixes up cause and effect. I've been working on several projects with AI tools to satisfy my intellectual and aesthetic curiosity. But I'm reluctant to share them--to engage with the community--because of the toxic discourse around usage of these tools. "Sure, I could post this cute Go library I worked on with Claude to /r/golang, but people will probably just say 'AI SLOP' and downvote it."

They do…? Well, “auto” mode has been default in Claude Code for a couple months now. It’s effectively “safer yolo:” tool calls are inspected by a separate classification system (another smaller LLM, I believe) to approve or deny. And you can always layer on additional sandboxing mechanisms to limit the blast radius deterministically.

> They do…? Well, “auto” mode has been default in Claude Code for a couple months now

They have never shipped "yolo" mode by default. Auto mode is not yolo mode. They trained a task specific model just for ensuring the llm didn't accidentally delete every file from your computer.

Seems to be back up now, I've had a couple messages go through successfully in the past ~5min.

Huh, that’s what happened. Good thing my company has Bedrock as a backstop for situations like this.

Bedrock is having issues too, though. Hope your prompts are tested with other models, not just Claude!

Is ChatGPT's interface always this atrociously jittery? Or is it just because this page is getting an HN hug-of-death right now? Every time I try to scroll the whole page goes blank for a few seconds and then re-renders.

I think that's partly because it's a fairly long conversation and partly because of all the LaTeX. There's enough formulas there to fill a small text book, and I doubt their renderer is all that efficient.

I've found it's had unacceptable scroll performance in long contexts for a while now.

In this case, it takes me 12 seconds to see content when first opening the link, and about 18 to re-render content when scrolling.

So, the Jacobian Conjecture was done, via an counterexample. Can we now put the models to work on an even more difficult problem: Scrolling 100k of text, on a 128GB 24 core processor, smoothly in a browser?

Is this the GTA 4 trailer?! /s

It’s too bad that ssh doesn’t carry sound. A MIDI-style rendition of the song would really tie it all together.

Surprised nobody here nor on the reddit thread caught this one: https://github.com/nahla-nee/wfqueue/blob/main/src/lib.rs#L3...

    unsafe impl<T, const N: usize> Sync for WFQueue<T, N> {}
    unsafe impl<T, const N: usize> Send for WFQueue<T, N> {}

These impls are unsound, because neither constrains `T` to be `Sync`/`Send`. As-written this would let you declare a `WFQueue<Rc<T>, N>` and pass non-atomic-refcount pointers between threads.

The fix is straightforward:

    unsafe impl<T: Sync, const N: usize> Sync for WFQueue<T, N> {}
    unsafe impl<T: Send, const N: usize> Send for WFQueue<T, N> {}

I.e., WFQueue is only Sync if T is Sync, and likewise for Send.

Actually, later on, the code makes a similar mistake, but only for one impl.

    unsafe impl<'a, T, const N: usize> Send for DrivableWFEnqueue<'a, T, N> where T: Send {}
    unsafe impl<'a, T, const N: usize> Send for DrivableWFDequeue<'a, T, N> {}

WFQueue isn't handing out &T, so Send is sufficient:

  unsafe impl<T: Send, const N: usize> Sync for WFQueue<T, N> {}
  unsafe impl<T: Send, const N: usize> Send for WFQueue<T, N> {}