Code being in a simple state also matters with the efficiency of agents ime.
It is not just ergonomics but the point of using rust is to have solid abstraction and a lot of high quality libraries to use.
If you are doing static allocation + arenas then you can't use nice abstraction, you can't use libraries, you have to write a ton of unsafe code because of these reasons. Then using rust is actually working against you so there is no point in using it.
> Markets are random walks so they exhibit a fairly fixed distribution of different sized crashes.
Market prices being unpredictable random walks doesn't mean that the volatility or shape needs to be constant. To make the notation more precise, you need to talk about (sub-) martingales.
> If they deviated, someone could notice that pattern and trade on it, returning the market back to a random walk.
This is true, but "fairly fixed distribution of different sized crashes." doesn't follow at all.
If Claude can write formal mathematical proofs (that a machine can check), or it can write software that works, where's the head of the reader that imposes the meaning?
Who said this conversation was about broader stock market indices?
The title literally has AI in the title, the conversation is centered around an "AI selloff", as its been labeled, that happened this week.
Roughly 40% of stock market gains since 2023 are tied to less than 10 companies with massive AI investments.
The entire conversation is about this sector, and most of the gains in the "broader indices" that nobody was discussing, are largely attributed to AI invesment and speculation.
Well, there's definitively a pareto frontier of freedom and avoiding bad stuff. And many companies ain't on it.
(In practice, I found Google to be better at having (internal) security controls that are reliably but also don't get in the way than eg banks I worked at.)
> But in the end, if you provide a quote, they may save themselves money if you value yourself below market.
There's no single market value for workers, because there's no one archetypical worker, especially not for the kind of knowledge work many people here do where you have salary negotiations at all.
So it's your responsibility as a candidate to portrait yourself as the highest and most valuable kind of worker and ask for compensation that's commensurate with that. That number is also part of the signalling.
> Or they can just lie and say yeah we cover that.
Well, you'll detect that lie at the latest when it comes to signing the contract. If you do, that's a big red flag and you will save yourself a lot of hassle by walking away.
> I find it easier to lie on a yes or no question, than a question of quantity.
I'm not sure that makes much of a difference. But let's grant it for the sake of argument: in that case, you giving them a number also has bigger signalling effect.
> You will basically have to be willing to walk away to get an answer other than "tell me what you're looking for and we'll let you know if you're in our range", which basically loses the negotiation.
No, it doesn't lose the negotiation. What makes you think so? Setting anchors and controlling the document is very powerful.
But yes, you need to know what you can get, and you need to be able and willing to walk away.
They're already anchored, because they know what everyone else is making. You won't kick them loose unless they are teeny tiny. The advice in this thread is basically straight from the patio11 blog post.
I'm not sure ergonomics matter that much these days, when your agent can write the tedious bits?
reply