sornaensis's comments

Weird clone of OpenFront but with no UI .. ? Custom game doesn't work, tons of errors, can't even see where I am, or understand what is going on.

Doesn't seem like you played your own game before submitting it.

Trying to go the Spec -> LLM route is just a lost cause. And seems wasteful to me even if it worked.

LLM -> Spec is easier, especially with good tools that can communicate why the spec fails to validate/compile back to the LLM. Better languages that can codify things like what can actually be called at a certain part of the codebase, or describe highly detailed constraints on the data model, are just going to win out long term because models don't get tired trying to figure this stuff out and put the lego bricks in the right place to make the code work, and developers don't have to worry about UB or nasty bugs sneaking in at the edges.

With a good 'compilable spec' and documentation in/around it, the next LLM run can have an easier time figuring out what is going on.

Trying to create 'validated english' is just injecting a ton of complexity away from the area you are trying to get actual work done: the code that actually runs and does stuff.

I have good success using Copilot to analyze problems for me, and I have used it in some narrow professional projects to do implementation. It's still a bit scary how off track the models can go without vigilance.

I have a lot of worry that I will end up having to eventually trudge through AI generated nightmares since the major projects at work are implemented in Java and Typescript.

I have very little confidence in the models' abilities to generate good code in these or most languages without a lot of oversight, and even less confidence in many people I see who are happy to hand over all control to them.

In my personal projects, however, I have been able to get what feels like a huge amount of work done very quickly. I just treat the model as an abstracted keyboard-- telling it what to write, or more importantly, what to rewrite and build out, for me, while I revise the design plans or test things myself. It feels like a proper force multiplier.

The main benefit is actually parallelizing the process of creating the code, NOT coming up with any ideas about how the code should be made or really any ideas at all. I instruct them like a real micro-manager giving very specific and narrow tasks all the time.

This seems like a step backwards. Programming Languages for LLMs need a lot of built in guarantees and restrictions. Code should be dense. I don't really know what to make of this project. This looks like it would make everything way worse.

I've had good success getting LLMs to write complicated stuff in haskell, because at the end of the day I am less worried about a few errant LLM lines of code passing both the type checking and the test suite and causing damage.

It is both amazing and I guess also not surprising that most vibe coding is focused on python and javascript, where my experience has been that the models need so much oversight and handholding that it makes them a simple liability.

The ideal programming language is one where a program is nothing but a set of concise, extremely precise, yet composable specifications that the _compiler_ turns into efficient machine code. I don't think English is that programming language.

Can someone explain to me why anyone would do this, and then tweet about it..? Is he really trying to blame 'ai agents' and 'terraform' .. ??

'The extinction of non-Avian Dinosaurs' just doesn't roll off the tongue.

MC02 had a lot of problems but calling it a zerg rush exposes your ignorance-- it was a very sophisticated and well-coordinated surprise attack. The people running the wargame rejected the outcome as a likely tactic to be used by the hypothetical adversary and guess what, they have been proven right, see: the war in iraq. The iraqi army completely failed to hold initiative against the coalition or organize coherent resistance nevermind launch a coordinated surprise attack ahead of the invasion.

The other aspect that is missed in criticisms of this particular wargame is the fact that there were specific doctrine elements that were to be tested-- now the claimed outcome of those can be debated, for instance the fact that opfor had many restrictions on how they were allowed to employ their anti air defenses-- but a wargame is NOT meant to be a giant game of paintball where when one side gets hit they just pack up and go home, that would be incredibly wasteful. In many cases you have formations planning and training for months to participate in the exercise. The purpose is testing out many different aspects of doctrine, and often times that involves 'ignoring' results of one part of the wargame.

If you investigate all banned weapons though, you'll find it's more to do with practicality+cost+optics than some high minded agreement. Wars fought today are still brutal, and people use anything that will get them ahead.

So e.g. chemical and biological weapons are pretty poor performers when you put them up against conventional weapons.

For one thing, both can backfire greatly if for example they are improperly handled behind the frontlines. Weapons need to be stable and easy to handle and able to deal with fuckups without killing your own people.

They also are expensive as hell, it costs a lot more (and is probably harder) to find competent people willing to make these types of weapons, and per dollar, they don't kill as many people as conventional bombs do. (See: World War 1) So, they are 'banned', but mostly because they aren't very effective.

When you look at so-called chemical weapons that are in use, they are usually used for temporary area denial, are stable, not that lethal, if at all, and easy to produce: white phosphorus, CN and CS gas, etc. The US of course calls white phosphorus for 'illumination' but the people firing it know what they're using it for. So when they do beat out the alternatives, they get used anyway.

Laser weapons are being developed but they are basically just not there yet. Batteries are heavy and the usefulness seems pretty limited to shooting down incoming drones/missiles possibly. Just using anti-missile missiles or just a stream of bullets is still cheaper and more reliable. Again, if you can see and hit someone in the eyes with a laser, why not just shoot them with a normal bullet? The economics don't make sense.

Poisoned bullets I haven't really heard of, I'm not sure what kind of poison would survive being coated onto a bullet and fired out of a gun, or how making a really expensive nerve agent bullet and then shooting someone with it is better or more sensible than just shooting them with a regular bullet so I can't really comment.

Expanding ammo was 'banned' but again, it was essentially replaced with spitzer style rifle bullets that are more accurate and effective anyway, and can have a similar result on impact.

tldr it's not a good comparison to call these things actually banned in a meaningful sense.

Hitler had (poor) intelligence that the Soviets had thousands of tanks (they actually had more than the germans thought); he refused to believe that such a 'backwards' country could have such a strong modern military however.

The entire point of Monads, is restricting the ability to do these operations into functions that are tagged with having this ability, precisely so you _cannot_ invoke IO in a random pure function. It's the entire point of the language in fact.

If you want to just write IO, you can just define a function with an IO () value and use it in any other function that resolves to IO (), or call other functions that live in IO *, or any pure functions, etc etc.

I took it to mean the rate of expansion is approaching a horizontal asymptote e.g. -x/ln(x), x > 1

For sure, the band is Lars and James. People like to hate on Lars and Hammett out of jealousy I guess, they’re both really successful in a genre that celebrates technical prowess, while not being technical players.

If you have any musician friends who are into metal, ask them what they think of Lars as a drummer. :)

The doctor isnt the one in danger dying or getting sick, that seems like a big distinction and probably the reason people were skeptical of it.

Really, people had to be told that people with white(r) skin, are similar..?

How stupid do these people think 'everyone else' is. This is the most absurd thing I've read all day.

Humans, who divide themselves along such lines as _what tv shows they like_, had to have the concept of _skin colour_ invented for them. Really think about how ridiculous this assertion is.

The worst feeling in the world is being a bit lonely, and then being by yourself in a place where you are surrounded by groups of people. I got more depressed more often trying to go do social things in uni than I ever did physically being separated from others and actually by myself.

Yes, the same flight plans, routes and timetables, were re-used, so when spotters saw the aircraft take off they had a very good idea of where it would come from.

The shoot down also involved the SAM radar operator violating his own SOP by leaving his radar on longer than they normally do, and firing at a non-PID contact, because they _knew_ the aircraft was going to be there.

Complacency kills.

Combat Mission is generally meant to be played turn-based, and commands given to squads are issued on a grid. You can watch the entire action unfold in replay while determining your next move, so you don’t miss anything.

It’s almost identical in concept, and the simulation is much much deeper than it appears.

I recommend trying a demo instead of judging by looks, it is not at all a pretty game but it’s got a lot going on.

Because Combat Mission is an actual video game analogue of Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader instead of a video game version of pushing chits around and rolling dice.

Also, there are several clones of ASL that are published by various wargaming publishers such as Slitherine: Lock'n'Load Tactical, etc.

As a kid (7-8) I was forced to play acoustic guitar for several years. I didnt like any of the music (or much music at all) that I played, and ended up quitting.

Later on when I discovered rock and metal music I asked my parents for an electric guitar but they refused, saying I had to play the acoustic I had first and then I could ‘progress’ to electric. I was easily discouraged then so I gave up the idea.

I didnt end up getting an electric guitar and starting to play music seriously until after university when I had a job and could afford it easily myself. Now I play almost every day, learning new things, writing my own little pieces, and jamming with friends. Music is now one of the most fulfilling things in my life, and I believe one of my biggest regrets will be waiting so long to get started after I knew what I wanted!