Don't we already have these filters in place? I only saw this because it was highly-upvoted on HN, for example - I don't read every new submission. I also read things sent by friends and family, shared by curators I trust, etc.
Of course these systems may eventually break down, but for now they seem to work.
By the way, for anyone wondering/unfamiliar, the scale of this tournament is such that it's not realistically possible to enumerate all possible outcomes, let alone submit them to a site like this. With 63 games, there are 2^63 possible brackets, and it takes 63 bits to encode each possibility.
2^63 brackets * 8 bytes/bracket ~= 74 exabytes - just to list all possible combinations!
There are many combinations that are completely unlikely, but even if you could reduce this by 90% (I doubt it) it's still infeasible to even list all the combinations.
Someday, in another 20-30 years, this might be achievable. Somehow I feel like it will be a sad day when that happens. Of course the tournament will probably have expanded to 128 by then making it safely out of reach of computation.
Love it! Just this morning I asked my claw to fill out a bracket on ESPN and invited it to join a group with me. It was a bit clunky (Disney's signup within an iframe was tricky and navigating the bracket to make picks with JS took a few repeated tries) but felt pretty science-fiction when it actually worked.
For sure it was overkill/not the most efficient approach - really I was more just curious if it would work. The answer was "kind of", but even that is pretty amazing. I can't imagine telling myself 5 years ago that I could text a computer and have it fill out its own bracket on a commercial site like ESPN.
its going to be cool when you put in your todo list in the morning that you need to fill out your espn bracket and by lunch your agent will have 3 different versions ready for your review
The author is saying something different here - that in this mode, the speaker’s feelings about how the recipient will receive a blunt message are the speaker’s problem.
In this case the recipient has already reassured the speaker they can handle their own feelings, but still meets resistance from speakers who are guilty or worried about how they will come across if they are too direct.
Eh, I think the author is also exaggerating the problem significantly.
“I hope this is okay to bring up and sorry for the long message, I just wanted to flag that I've been looking at the latency numbers and I'm not totally sure but it seems like there might be an issue with the caching layer?”
This isn’t a problem of overpoliteness. It’s a problem of almost nonsensical rambling. I’ve never worked with anyone who actually communicated like this and if they did, they would get pretty direct feedback that they need to stop this. This isn’t polite, it’s dithering. Professor Quirrell level lack of confidence.
> Eh, I think the author is also exaggerating the problem significantly.
> “I hope this is okay to bring up and sorry for the long message, I just wanted to flag that I've been looking at the latency numbers and I'm not totally sure but it seems like there might be an issue with the caching layer?”
You're cherry-picking the most extreme example out of the bunch as a way of discrediting the argument. If you actual read the other examples given:
> The Slack message that starts with "Hey! Hope you had a great weekend :)"before asking a technical question or the PR comment that opens with "I'm not sure if I'm missing something here and sorry if this is a dumb question but" before raising a completely valid concern, or that incident text that spends two full paragraphs explaining that the author was sleep-deprived and had a lot on their plate and the monitoring tool had a weird quirk that they didn't know about and their lead had told them something ambiguous three weeks ago, before finally getting around to saying what actually broke and why.
There's no exaggeration going on here. This is the norm for the majority of Slack conversations I've seen online, including my own job - out of the hundreds of people I've interacted with at my job, well over half of them do this.
It absolutely does have relevance to Crocker's Rules. People exchange pleasantries because there's a cultural tendency to treat a direct, to-the-point message/request out of nowhere without the phatic rituals as off-putting and mildly offensive/insensitive.
This is pretty universally understood in most software engineering cultures in the West, which the author (and certainly the vast majority of HN) appear to reside in. It seems like you probably just don't exist in the same culture - but there's nothing wrong with that, you just have to be aware that that's how we do it.
Crocker's rules are about not burying honesty beneath politeness.
Someone can maybe squint real hard and see the word "Hey", in "Hey, the site is down" as politeness obstructing communication. But at that point, I hope the person seeing it this way operates under Crocker's Rules, because I would say they are a moron. There is a world of difference between basic human pleasantries and niceness that actually obscures communication.
Crocker's rules also explicitly state that others are allowed to disregard niceness, not that they are obligated to. Indeed, if you are offended or bothered by someone being polite, then under Crocker's rules, that would be your problem.
What's odd is according to the article, this index estimated an ~8% default rate in 2024. So maybe the stress test was measuring something different? It's weird to think the stress test would find a lower loss rate during a severe recession than in the most recent year with data available.
The regulators were modeling a scenario where private credit was dragged down by a problem elsewhere in the economy, not one where the rest of the economy was dragged down by private credit. Everyone understands that center of a financial implosion is always worse than its effects on the broader economy, but regulators aren't tasked with stopping the explosion at ground zero, they are tasked with stopping contagion dominoes from falling, so that's what they model.
> maybe the stress test was measuring something different?
The Fed is measuring the loss on bank loans to the private-credit lenders. A 10% portfolio loss shouldn't result in those lenders defaulting to their banks.
By my rough estimate, one can halve the portfolio loss rate to get the NBFI-to-bank loss rate. So a 10% portfolio loss means we're around a 5% expected long-run loss to the banks. Which is still weirdly high, so I feel like I must be missing something...
It's some sort of Gell-Mann-Amnesia-like effect. I am accustomed to seeing thoughtful, informed discussion about technical topics on HN, so then it's jarring when something like this hits the front page and nobody seems to have any idea what they're talking about.
It's opposite Gell-Mann-Amnesia: I am a SWE and I come here because I find it one of the best places to keep abreast of the broader software world, not just the little corner of it that I'm currently working in. So in the things that I know well, I trust it. My wife is a medical professional, and so I know just enough to see that most medical conversations here are complete and utter nonsense.
So the mental model I have of the average HN contributor is basically that they are all SWE's- they know software engineering extremely well, and the farther you get from that the less valuable the conversation will be, and the more likely it will be someone trying to reason from first principles for 30 seconds about something that intelligent hard working people devote their careers to.
This doesn't seem too far off from ~80 characters per line, which I believe is best practice for readability. Though you could make the column wider and bump up the font size and it would be even more readable.
It feels like building humanoid robots so they can use tools built for human hands. Not clear if it will pay off, but if it does then you get a bunch of flexibility across any task "for free".
Of course APIs and CLIs also exist, but they don't necessarily have feature parity, so more development would be needed. Maybe that's the future though since code generation is so good - use AI to build scaffolding for agent interaction into every product.
I think it's akin to self driving cars prioritizing nornal roads rather than implementing new infrastructure. Tricky, but if you get it right the whole world opens up, since you don't depend on others to adapt your system.
I don't see how an API couldn't have full parity with a web interface, the API is how you actually trigger a state transition in the vast majority of cases
Of course these systems may eventually break down, but for now they seem to work.
reply