To be fair, asking why someone wants to do something is often a good question. Especially in places like StackOverflow where the people asking questions are often inexperienced.
I see it all the time professionally too. People ask "how do I do X" and I tell them. Then later on I find out that the reason they're asking is because they went down a whole rabbit hole they didn't need to go down.
An analogy I like is imagine you're organising a hike up a mountain. There's a gondola that takes you to the top on the other side, but you arrange hikes for people that like hiking. You get a group of tourists and they're all ready to hike. Then before you set off you ask the question "so, what brings you hiking today" and someone from the group says "I want to get to the top of the mountain and see the sights, I hate hiking but it is what it is". And then you say "if you take a 15 minute drive through the mountain there's a gondola on the other side". And the person thanks you and goes on their way because they didn't know there was a gondola. They just assumed hiking was the only way up. You would have been happy hiking them up the mountain but by asking the question you realised that they didn't know there was an easier way up.
It just goes back to first principles.
The truth is sometimes people decide what the solution looks like and then ask for help implementing that solution. But the solution they chose was often the wrong solution to begin with.
I spent years on IRC, first getting help and later helping others. I found out myself it was very useful to ask such questions when someone I didn't know asked a somewhat unusual question.
The key is that if you're going to probe for Y, you usually need to be fairly experienced yourself so you can detect the edge cases, where the other person has a good reason.
One approach I usually ended up going for when it appeared the other person wasn't a complete newbie was to first explain that I think they're trying to solve the wrong problem or otherwise going against the flow, and that there's probably some other approach that's much better.
Then I'd follow up with something like "but if you really want to proceed down this rrack, this is how I'd go about it", along with my suggestion.
It's great when you're helping people one on one, but it's absolutely terrible for a QA site where questions and answers are expected to be helpful to other people going forward.
I don't think your analogy really helps here, it's not a question. If the question was "How do I get to the top of the mountain" or "How do I want to get to the top of the mountain without hiking" the answer to both would be "Gondola".
> Especially in places like StackOverflow where the people asking questions are often inexperienced.
Except that SO has a crystal clear policy that the answer to questions should be helpful for everybody reaching it through search, not only the person asking it. And that questions should never be asked twice.
So if by chance, after all this dance the person asking the question actually needs the answer to a different question, you'll just answer it with some completely unrelated information and that will the the mandatory correct answer for everybody that has the original problem for any reason.
Yes exactly. The fact that the "XY problem" exists, and that users sometimes ask the wrong question, isn't being argued. The problem is that SO appears to operate at the extreme, taking the default assumption that the asker is always wrong. That toxic level of arrogance (a) pushes users away and (b) ...what you said.
Which is why LLMs are so much more useful than SO and likely always will be. LLMs do this even. Like trying to write my own queue by scratch and I ask an LLM for feedback I think it’s Gemini that often tells me Python’s deque is better. duh! That’s not the point. So I’ve gotten into the habit of prefacing a lot of my prompts with “this is just for practice” or things of that nature. It actually gets annoying but it’s 1,000x more annoying finding a question on SO that is exactly what you want to know but it’s closed and the replies are like “this isn’t the correct way to do this” or “what you actually want to do is Y”
>I see it all the time professionally too. People ask "how do I do X" and I tell them. Then later on I find out that the reason they're asking is because they went down a whole rabbit hole they didn't need to go down.
Yep. The magic question is "what are you trying to accomplish?". Oftentimes people lacking experience think they know the best way to get the results they're after and aren't aware of the more efficient ways someone with more experience might go about solving their problem.
This is what I tend to do. I still feel like my expertise in architecting the software and abstractions is like 10x better than I've seen an LLM do. I'll ask it to do X, and then ask it to do Y, and then ask it to do Z, and it'll give you the most junior looking code ever. No real thought on abstractions, maybe you'll just get the logic split into different functions if you're lucky. But no big picture thinking, even if I prompt it well it'll then create bad abstractions that expose too much information.
So eventually it gets to the point where I'm basically explaining to it what interfaces to abstract, what should be an implementation detail and what can be exposed to the wider system, what the method signatures should look like, etc.
So I had a better experience when I just wrote the code myself at a very high level. I know what the big picture look of the software will be. What types I need, what interfaces I need, what different implementations of something I need. So I'll create them as stubs. The types will have no fields, the functions will have no body, and they'll just have simple comments explaining what they should do. Then I ask the LLM to write the implementation of the types and functions.
And to be fair, this is the approach I have taken for a very long time now. But when a new more powerful model is released, I will try and get it to solve these types of day to day problems from just prompts alone and it still isn't there yet.
It's one of the biggest issues with LLM first software development from what I've seen. LLMs will happily just build upon bad foundations and getting them to "think" about refactoring the code to add a new feature takes a lot of prompting effort that most people just don't have. So they will stack change upon change upon change and sure, it works. But the code becomes absolutely unmaintainable. LLM purists will argue that the code is fine because it's only going to be read by an LLM but I'm not convinced. Bad code definitely confuses the LLMs more.
I tend to use a shotgun approach, and then follow with an aggressive refactor. It can actually take a lot of time to prune and restructure the code well. At least it feels slow compared to opening the Claude firehose and spraying out code. There needs to be better tools for pruning, because Claude is not thorough enough.
This seems to work well for me. I write a lot of model training code, and it works really well for the breadth of experiments I can run. But by the end it looks like a graveyard of failed ideas.
Insurance companies aren't a monopoly. They're in competition with each other to offer lower rates. So if there's a reduction in paying out, they'll need to reduce their premiums to stay competitive with each other.
Mullvad is great for privacy. But it's blocked by pretty much every VPN block list. NordVPN at the very least bypasses all the ones I regularly encounter.
I do use Mullvad for most web browsing though. But Imgur for example is blocked on it, and it's blocked in the UK, so I need NordVPN if I want to see any images there.
Most people's VPN usage is literally just geolocation restrictions and Nord is really good at that.
System wide proxy configuration doesn’t actually always work system wide.
A VPN tends to have more success in encapsulating all application traffic (or all desired application traffic, if you’re so inclined to configure your system)
I also saw a similar thing. I also naively pointed at "cosmic rays". It wasn't until someone found the actual bug that I realised how unlikely that was.
The actual bug was unsafe code somewhere else in the application corrupting the memory. The application worked fine, but the log message strings were being slightly corrupted. Just a random letter here and there being something it shouldn't be.
The question really should have been, if this was truly cosmic interference, why only this service and why was the problem appearing more than once over multiple versions of the application?
Cosmic rays are a great excuse to problems you don't yet understand. But the reality of them is extremely rare and it's like 99% a memory corruption bug caused by application code.
Exactly, unless someone is in imminent danger there's basically no reason to do a high speed chase. Get the plate, track it on the thousands of ANPR cameras that exist, look up the owner and just knock on their door later on.
Like 99% of high speed chases only end when the culprit crashes their car, and often that's into someone else's car risking harm to innocent civilians.
Producing power by the mid 2030s? Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out and getting them to produce power. Or is this just a pipe-dream we were sold?
Like, I imagined these things being compact enough to be shipped to the outskirts of towns and producing power. Afterall, they are from the same technology that was powering nuclear subs, right?
This Rolls Royce design isn't all that "small." A RR SMR design is a 470MWe PWR. About half the size of a typical PWR reactor. Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 was 460MWe. Calling this an "SMR" is a stretch, likely for PR purposes.
It's a rather conventional design, low enriched fuel, no exotic coolants. There is a paper on it at NRC[1]. And they've never built one, so if they get it running by the 2030's they'll be doing pretty well for a Western company.
I downplayed there, because occasionally I try to moderate my extreme cynicism.
It would be miraculous, in the biblical sense of the word. Not only because it would be a technical and regulatory triumph for RR and the UK, but because it would mean this is something other than what it appears to be to me.
None of this will get built. It's all fake, and after the benefits are taken, and the subsidy budgets are drained, and the various political and academic and regulatory folks have populated the requisite non-profit no-show jobs, and the professional opposition leaders have collected all the anti-nook bucks, and RR et al. have wiggled out of whatever obligations they're pretending to pursue via the holes they've already carefully arranged for themselves, these papers and headlines will be forgotten.
Closer to a third for recent models (the French P4 reactors from the 80s were 1300, the later N4 1450~1500, the EPR is 1650). 500-ish is a relatively typical density for reactors from the mid to late 60s.
The reactor is still to be developed by Rolls Royce, which is hidden in mid article. The don't have plans, not even a working prototype yet, so expect delays to at least the mid 2040s.
One has to expect any promise of future nuclear to have the optimism turned up to 11, right to the limit of plausibility. The reality will inevitably disappoint.
It might not be as bad as it sounds. A few comments over someone had a preliminary permit application which described the technical details.
The gist of it is, the reactor is a 500MW pressurized water reactor, Gen3/3+. Not any fancy new Gen4 thing that you usually hear about when talking about small modular reactors. No molten salt, no high temperature gas cooling, no weird moderators, no heap of crumbling carbon/uranium spheres, no liquid lead/bismuth/natrium, no thorium.
So I guess it could actually be possible to keep that timetable, because it is actually old, boring and proven technology, just a little smaller and maybe more prefabricated than the usual 1GW to 1.5GW PWRs that were built in the last 4 decades.
> Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out and getting them to produce power.
That's the point if / when we have actually working SMRs, with production lines set up. But the limited development of small civilian reactors before the 80s and the 3 decades freeze on most things nuclear means SMRs are only just getting out of research status (e.g. in the US only NuScale's VOYGR are currently certified).
This has kind of been the problem with SMRs; they sound great, but as you develop them, they get less and less small and modular. These are 470MWe. Coincidentally, the (very old) 'normal' MAGNOX reactors which used to operate at this site were 490MWe; in their day they were considered quite large.
> Afterall, they are from the same technology that was powering nuclear subs, right?
That was just for the news headlines, nuclear isn't and never has been, "practical". Look on the bright side, so much taxpayer money will go into this, it's probably going to make someone richer.
Nuclear subs are a "money no object" technology, as our supposed insurance policy against Soviet invasion and/or armageddon, it's whatever it takes.
That technology is so expensive, so far from economically viable, that only two countries (US & France) are even using it for aircraft carriers, despite its potential huge advantages over oil (stay at sea for years at a time without refuelling, no need for vulnerable supply ships etc.)
The secret sauce for me is that it is a complete out of box experience. You'll boot it and sign into steam and that's it. Like, sure you can get little PCs off Amazon or build your own micro-atx system with more performance. But I just wanna buy something and have it done for me. I want to buy a system that developers know is kind of a "base" spec.
If the Steam Machine becomes the base configuration that most games start targeting, then I think everyone will benefit from it.
Playing games with friends has never been more popular. I guess couch co-op has been replaced with online multiplayer. The assumption being that if you want to play with friends, they'll have their own device.
But there's still plenty of couch co-op games. They're usually quite niche though and not your typical racing or shooting game.
> I guess couch co-op has been replaced with online multiplayer. The assumption being that if you want to play with friends, they'll have their own device.
I see it all the time professionally too. People ask "how do I do X" and I tell them. Then later on I find out that the reason they're asking is because they went down a whole rabbit hole they didn't need to go down.
An analogy I like is imagine you're organising a hike up a mountain. There's a gondola that takes you to the top on the other side, but you arrange hikes for people that like hiking. You get a group of tourists and they're all ready to hike. Then before you set off you ask the question "so, what brings you hiking today" and someone from the group says "I want to get to the top of the mountain and see the sights, I hate hiking but it is what it is". And then you say "if you take a 15 minute drive through the mountain there's a gondola on the other side". And the person thanks you and goes on their way because they didn't know there was a gondola. They just assumed hiking was the only way up. You would have been happy hiking them up the mountain but by asking the question you realised that they didn't know there was an easier way up.
It just goes back to first principles.
The truth is sometimes people decide what the solution looks like and then ask for help implementing that solution. But the solution they chose was often the wrong solution to begin with.
reply