It implies potential coverage of anything one could bring up. It creates a similar impression in my mind, because it becomes easy to claim you already considered something.
In fact, they wrote "reviewing […] other due diligence tasks", which doesn't imply any coverage! This close, literal reading is an appropriate – nay, the only appropriate – way to draw conclusions about the degree of responsibility exhibited by the custodians of a living standard. By corollary, any criticism of this form could be rebuffed by appeal to a sufficiently-carefully-written press release.
I would have thought that my issue with what you did was pretty clear from the original message, and would not require any particularly sophisticated interpretation.
">" is the notation for quotes.
You did not use it for a quote. Instead you used it to present your own distortion (not a paraphrase) as whimsicalism's words. That is not cool. Stop doing it.
Given the points I can see, other people understood what I was saying and appreciated it. I'm sorry that you're so confused but make no mistake this is your problem, not mine.
You're correct for an actual git revert, but it seems pretty clear that the original authors have mangled the story and it was actually either a "git checkout" or "git reset". The "file where 1-2 hours of progress had been accumulating" phrasing only makes sense if those were uncommitted changes.
And the reason jj helps in that case is that for jj there is no such thing as an uncommitted change.
Actually I find it better with JJ. I have context7 mcp to help with commands and I’ve got an explicit Claude.md to direct it, but it’s more ambitious running stacked PRs and better at resolving conflicts.
> Having no such thing as an uncommitted change seems like it would be a nightmare, but perhaps I'm just too git-oriented.
Why? What's the problem you see? The only problem I see is when you let these extra commits pollute the history reachable from any branch you care about.
Let's look at the following:
Internally, 'git stash' consists of two operations: one that makes an 'anonymous' commit of your files, and another that resets those files to whatever they were in HEAD. (That commit is anonymous in the sense that no branch points at it.)
The git libraries expose the two operations separately. And you can build something yourself that works similarly.
You can use these capabilities to build an undo/redo log in git, but without polluting any of the history you care about.
To be honest, I have no clue how Jujutsu does it. They might be using a totally different design.
The problem is git's index let's you write a bunch of unconnected code, then commit it separately. To different branches, even! This works great for stacking diffs but is terribly confusing if you don't know what you're doing.
How "to" do you want to make it? That description's totally disingenuous.
"later on" makes it sound to a human like it takes any real amount of time or that it isn't basically instant and wrapped by up porcelean, and "muck around with" implies that there's anything more random or complicated to it then writing the sha to a file in the right place in the .git directory.
Why is it the people posting positive comments who are "responding to incentives" by posting more, while it's the people posting negative comments who do so by stopping posting? Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless.
I don't know if the original claim about sentiment is true, but if it is, I don't think yours or blibble's (conflicting) claims about the reason are very believable.
> Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless
Maybe it's equal for non-tech people. But I don't think a lot of tech people are desperate for AI to be useless, I think they're desperate for it to be useful.
If you're someone who is smart enough to work with or without AI and you just find the tools not that helpful, I doubt you're all that worried about being replaced. But when we see companies increasingly bullish on something we know doesn't work that well, it's a bit worrying.
because there's no sweet tech-oligarch job, early access to the latest model, OpenAI speaking engagement invite, or larger bonus to be awarded by being aiphobic?
As far as I can tell, power isn't actually a major part of the expense, it's dwarfed by the capex. Just the amortization on the GPU will be an order of magnitude higher than the cost of the power to run the GPU at 100%. (Assuming a 5 year depreciation period.)
I mean, the claim is certainly nonsensical in the sense that this isn't something Wärtsilä just "realized". They have been in the power plant business for decades. In the oldest financials they have online (the annual report for year 2000) their power plant sales are larger than their marine engine sales.
Really makes me wonder about anything else I've read on Semianalysis. Like, it is such an insane thing to claim and so easy to check. And they just wrote it anyway, like some kind of pathological fabulists.
But what's the part that seems like a "big reach"? Are you saying they didn't sign those contracts? That their customers are making a mistake?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46661897