Deaf, free-thinker, passionate about database design and programming. Find peace in long beach walks. Love poker. Views are my own.
Adelaide
Joined May 2009
- Tweets1.5K
- Following174
- Followers582
- Likes5.9K
I read the patent. Wow! I haven't tried Z-curve indexing, but I often use composite non-clustered indexes in SQL Server. I improve performance by cleaning data and reducing unnecessary rows. I can imagine Z-curve offering extra benefits for multidimensional queries on millions of rows. 👀
Yes. It is critical to have a qualified interpreter at a hospital or GP, especially for serious health matters. My wife has cancer and is currently having chemotherapy.
Occasionally, an interpreter has been late or unavailable due to the high demand for interpreting services, so our daughter, who is a qualified interpreter, has had to step in. Since chemotherapy started, the hospital has taken clear communication between doctors, nurses and us very seriously. I made sure our need for qualified interpreters was clearly noted when we first met with the cancer specialist. The key is to book interpreters well in advance, as soon as appointments and treatment plans are organised.
The amount of medical information we receive can be overwhelming. Having a qualified interpreter gives us full and accurate access to that information. Communication access is absolutely vital, especially when someone’s health and life are involved.
The betting sequence is definitely suspicious. Jack calls the $6K raise with AK, then Britney, sitting right next to him, shoves $14.5K with Q6 suited into two interested players. That’s the action I’d be looking at closely. Suspicious, yes. Proof of collusion, no. That’s why, when I suspected collusion in cash games, I’d approach the poker manager privately and ask them to move the players to different tables. Unfortunately, at Hustler there’s only one table, so that’s not an option.👀
Damn, that’s a good analysis. I used to play a lot of Hold’em cash games back in the early 2000s, and I’ve seen this kind of “collusion” pattern many times. I have no tolerance for it. I mostly played in casinos, so I’d approach the poker manager privately. They knew what to look for and would protect the integrity of the game. One manager told me, “Just let me know and I’ll move them to different tables.” If it’s only a single table, I’d simply leave and never play there again. Over the last two decades, I’ve mostly moved on to tournament poker.👀
My main concern is Adelaide’s drainage system. If we are going to build more homes and increase density, drainage capacity must be a critical part of the compliance process. If the system cannot cope, developers should be required to upgrade it. Stronger compliance will also help weed out bad developers who cut corners.
I agree. AI generating more code isn’t the achievement. In my own software intensive work, the real engineering is designing the database, defining business rules, deciding how components interact, testing, finding problems and deciding what AI needs to change. 👀
Come on, guys. We need to be careful about people using fear to gain control over AI. The key questions are: what specific risk, what evidence, and what regulation would reduce it? Without clear answers, the debate can easily become driven more by fear than evidence.
Maybe someone could request council or government data and compare historical trends before and after migration increased in specific suburbs or nearby areas. This could show whether population changes are a factor, rather than simply blaming expensive rubbish disposal fees.
If Hindley Street is being transformed, something really needs to be done about all the massage parlours. They’re everywhere. 👀
I agree they’re technically different. My point wasn’t the technology, but how fear around a risk can drive huge spending, influence and control. That’s what reminds me of Y2K.
This reminds me of Y2K. Billions were spent because of the fear. I think some of this extreme AI talk is similar. Fear attracts money, influence and control.👀
I’m always keen to read your technical posts about AI agents. I remember reading Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns, and Practices over 20 years ago. I didn’t necessarily adopt your approach, but I found it fascinating because it gave me different perspectives on how I work and why I work that way.
One thing I find interesting is the difference in our anchors. Your approach seems anchored more in software structure and behaviour: is the architecture clean, does it behave correctly, do the tests pass, and is coverage good?
My anchor comes more from Codd and relational principles. I start with the data model, relationships, constraints and business meaning. SQL Server, VB.NET, JavaScript/ASP.NET, AI and ChatGPT sit above that foundation. For example, I care whether a foreign key represents the correct relationship and whether the database structure accurately represents reality before worrying about the code sitting above it.
Your post made me wonder about a possible competency trap with increasingly capable AI agents. As they repeatedly produce good results, we naturally allow them to work more independently. But could that success itself make us less likely to notice when the underlying model or assumptions are wrong, even when the architecture is clean and the tests pass?
Fascinating stuff to think about over my morning coffee.
OK. It's time to rethink this.
I've spend the last several weeks working on a harness that tightly constrains the agents to work the way that I want them to work. I set up all kinds of gates, and tests, and tools, and protocols, and ...
And while I was heads-down getting that to work, the agents got a LOT better. So much so that when I came up for air, the need for my harness was obviated. Indeed, the need for _any_ but the most liberal of harnesses may be obviated.
Just how good these things have gotten blows me away. I have had long debates with grok and codex about the structure of systems -- as if they were senior engineers. They often disagree with me and have their own perspectives. I have, more than once, found myself agreeing with their views.
I have not given up on constraints and tooling. Unit testing is still important. So is CRAP and Mutation testing. These tools still find bugs and offer useful constraints, though they can leave scars.
However, the agents have gotten so good that I can now give one a very significant task with a few guidelines and it will faithfully implement it. I can walk away for 40 minutes and when I return it will be done. CRAP will be satisfied, Coverage will be high, and Mutation testing complete. The architecture will be clean, and the code will be very good.
The end result may not behave perfectly, but it's so close that a couple of tweaks usually puts it into place.
What does this mean going forward? I'm not sure. But I'm beginning to think that harnesses should not treat agents as components within a software design.
Yeah, I’m actually watching it on Netflix right now! It’s strange to see the NFL being played at the ’G (MCG in Melbourne). Over 90,000 people attended! 👀 I’m from Adelaide, Australia.
I fucking hate this. Never use your phone while working, driving, walking or doing anything that involves movement. It’s one of the most dangerous distractions of all.
I take no political side, but I support the broader point if the real issue is transparency. To me, this is about data lineage and transparency. When governments publish statistics, people should be able to see where the data came from, how it was grouped or changed, and how the final numbers were calculated.
From my previous experience working in IT and ICT roles within government departments, I learned the importance of understanding the processes behind statistics, particularly the data itself, its structure, and how the figures were calculated. I believe people should be able to follow the data from the original source through each transformation to the final result and judge the facts for themselves.