Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ch4s3's commentslogin

You can accurately describe elixir syntax in a few paragraphs, and the semantics are pretty straightforward. I’d imagine doing complex supervision trees falls flat.

Which models are you using? I’ve had mixed luck with GPT 5.2.

Opus 4.5 with Elixir has been remarkably good for me. I've been writing Elixir in production since ~2018 and it continues to amaze me at the quality of code it produces.

I've been tweaking my skills to avoid nested cases, better use of with/do to control flow, good contexts, etc.


I'll have to check it out. I've found GPT to be adequate at producing running code that I can improve either by hand, or very specific prompting.

What does your workflow look like?


I've been using Opus 4.5 via Claude Code

It’s a lot like the rise and presidency of Andrew Jackson.

Good intentions and lack of foresight often combine poorly.

The fault lies with vape manufacturers. It’s big tobacco. They are soulless ghouls.

Surprisingly, Big Tobacco does not really likes vapes because it's not them, and eats in their profit margin. If any, they lobby against vapes and specifically disposable vapes.

That hasn’t been true here in New Zealand. Although the nuance around what counts as a vape may be where this is happening.

YMMV, but it's been the case in France. They were behind the ban on disposable non rechargeable vapes, because kids bought them as a candy. They'd prefer they buy actual cigarettes.

What a brave and adventurous soul.

If you believe Lumafield, 8% of low-quality lithium ion batteries have a mechanical defect that can sometimes lead to a short circuit.

Is this person really brave, or just unaware of the risks?

https://www.lumafield.com/article/finding-hidden-risks-in-th...


He put a fuse on every individual cell and on the overall unit, so I would say he was reasonably cautious (although he deployed a bunch of high-voltage exposed wires at the end of the video, but we can assume that was just a tech demo).

fuses only help for overcurrent scenarios. if they cell overdischarges due to a mechanical fault, or internally shorts, the fuses wont do anything. any then if it internally shorts at an SOC > like 20-30%, it'll vent and cascade into other cells.

In my view they’re great for rough drafts, iterating on ideas, throwaway code, and pushing into areas I haven’t become proficient in yet. I think in a lot of cases they write ok enough tests.

> junior developer employment drops by about 9-10% within six quarters, while senior employment barely budges. Big tech hired 50% fewer fresh graduates over the past three years.

This study showing 9-10% drop is odd[1] and I'm not sure about their identification critria.

> We identify GenAI adoption by detecting job postings that explicitly seek workers to implement or integrate GenAI technologies into firm workflows.

Based on that MIT study it seems like 90+% of these projects fail. So we could easily be seeing an effect where firms posting these GenAI roles are burning money on the projects in a way that displaces investment in headcount.

The point about "BigTech" hiring 50% fewer grads is almost orthogonal. All of these companies are shifting hiring towards things where new grads are unlikely to add value, building data centers and frontier work.

Moreover the TCJA of 2017 caused software developers to not count for R&D tax write offs (I'm oversimplifying) starting in 2022. This surely has more of an effect than whatever "GenAI integrator roles" postings correlates to.

[1] https://download.ssrn.com/2025/11/6/5425555.pdf


AI became very popular suddenly. This is something that wasn't in anyone's budget. I believe cost savings from hiring freezes and layoffs are to pay for AI projects and infrastructure.

Right so you shift budget away from other things. The “study” looked at ai integration job listings. You have to budget those.

Hiring was booming until about 2020 though.

The TCJA change (of 2017) went into effect in 2022, I should have been more clear.

I didn't know that but that makes perfect sense. A lot of layoffs and outsourcing coincided with that. Are there any signs it'll be reintroduced?

It was late last year.

Where else do we simply accept that incumbents get to have full protection from loss at the expense of literally everyone else? Certainly other examples exist but we certainly wouldn’t tolerate wheat farmers stopping their neighbors from growing wheat.


I'd strongly prefer the government just not try to tell people what to eat, the incentives will always be perverse and nutrition science is anything but science in most cases.

EDIT down-thread to prove my point you'll see people citing studies in favor of and against the new recommendations. The studies are almost always in animals or use self reported data with tiny sample sizes.


The whole point of government performing the function is that they don't profit from misleading you, rather their goal is the country's welfare.

Obviously there are exceptions - particularly right now - but those are solved by rooting out corruption.


You say that but the food pyramid was devised but the agriculture lobby, and was never based on science.


Is this true? Specifically, "devised by" vs "influenced by" and "never based on science" meaning there was no, for example, attempt to improve heart disease rates?

In any event, looking at the whole history of food guidance paints a clearer picture of my point. Happy to hear of alternatives though!


I guess it would be more correct to say it was heavily influenced by the ag industry[1].

> attempt to improve heart disease rates

The diet basedheart disease science of the early 1990s was totally junk.[2]

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/

[2] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/09/404081/sugar-papers-reveal...


Totally junk or skewed to ignore sugar as a contributor? Again I have to immediately doubt your dire accusations because they diverge from what is said in your link as well as what my physician says about cholesterol.

And it's not like the 90s pyramid had sugar at the base.


Yes, largely junk. As I mentioned the literature is full of studies that are nothing but some regressions on top of self reported dietary data. It’s almost all very low quality[1].

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/people-are-bad-repor...


> not try to tell people what to eat

food industry has to be policed -- The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is a high school level story featuring the meat packing industry. All around, additives and substitutes are more profitable than raw ingredients.


I'm clearly not advocating against basic safety oversight. It's worth noting that The Jungle was a work of fiction and Sinclair famously fabricated a lot of details wholesale.


Tech bro woo at its finest. Can’t wait until they discover crystals.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: