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

Graphene supports the 6a, which unlocked goes for ~$100 on ebay. I imagine you can swing that as a lawyer to play around.

I'll also echo the ideas from everyone else here. You can just use it as a normal Android phone the way you do any other and there's still big benefits. There's also really big benefits in terms of carrier privacy that aren't often talked about, like vpn routing and hotspot usage.


Have any descriptions or analysis of what is considered "properly" on the cutting edge? I'm very curious. Only part of my profession is coding. But it would be nice to get insight into how people who really try to learn with these tools work.

I would say the first starting point is to run your agent somewhere you're comfortable with giving it mostly unconstrained permissions (e.g. --dangerously-skip-permissions for Claude COde), but more importantly, setting up sub-agents to hand off most work to.

A key factor to me in whether you're "doing it right" is whether you're sitting there watching the agent work because you need to intervene all the time, or whether you go do other stuff and review the code when the agent think it's done.

To achieve that, you need a setup with skills and sub-agents to 1) let the model work semi-autonomously from planning stage until commit, 2) get as much out of the main context as possible.

E.g. at one client, the Claude Code plugin I've written for them will pull an issue from Jira, ask for clarification if needed, then augment the ticket with implementation details, write a detailed TODO list. Once that's done, the TODO items will be fed to a separate implementation agent to do the work, one by one - this keeps the top level agent free to orchestrate, with little entering its context, and so can keep the agent working for hours without stopping.

Once it's ready to commit, it invokes a code-review agent. Once the code-review agent is satisifed (possibly involving re-work), it goes through a commit checklist, and offers to push.

None of these agents are rocket-science. They're short and simple, because the point isn't for them to have lots of separate context, but mostly to tell them the task and move the step out of the main agents context.

I've worked on a lot more advanced setups too, but to me, table stakes beyond minimising permissions is is to have key workflows laid out in a skill + delegate each step to a separate sub-agent.


Nice setup, but GP said:

> how people who really try to learn with these tools work

This setup is potentially effective sure, but you're not learning in the sense that GP meant.

For GP: Personally I've reached the conclusion that it's better for my career to use agents effectively and operate at this new level of abstraction, with final code review by me and then my team as normal.


I think about this all the time through the lens of "authority" on a topic. When we yielded our gathering spaces online to major social sites (read, Zuck et al) we then gave the content all the authority of what it means to dialogue in those places. Which is to say... not much.

This has impacted journalism, music, science, and so much more. It would take an eternity to hash out my perspective but I think that there's value in realizing that. And I think there's value of creating content from the authority of a personal website with cache. I think music is a great place for this to take off, since you don't need institutional backing. You just need good words and a deep connection to the community. In that way, I hope people do write and create good content through their own mediums/sites. And I hope we all join in reading and sharing those sites.

It might be wishful thinking though.


I think that might be my favorite department/lab website I've ever come across. Really fun. Doesn't at all align with the contemporary design status quo and it shows just how good a rich website can be on a large screen. Big fan.

https://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/


Uh.This has happened plenty. It's pretty well known that there's a lot of various abductions/disappearances of people the Chinese govt doesn't like. Including outright deaths in the streets:

https://rsf.org/en/beaten-death-state-security-rsf-shocked-g...


This is so false I can't even begin to describe it. And I say this as someone who nearly daily wanders around National Forest near his house.

First, why would it hurt to codify land access in a clearer way. And second. There are continuous battles with private landowners of where and how to access the public lands that you claim mean we don't need traditional paths or easements. See the recent Wyoming corning crossing case.

There are some public lands within a 5 minute walk of my house that I cannot access because rich landowners have intentionally cordoned them off. They're beautiful areas that should remain public. Why should you be able to effectively buy public land by restricting access to it maliciously? Why shouldn't Americans take seriously access to our shared land resources?


I don't think we really disagree. We should have better laws preventing landowners from restricting access to public land, and we should have laws explicitly allowing things like corner-crossing. But these are mostly issues in areas of public land that border developed areas. Since the vast majority of public land in this country is freely accessible to everyone via public roads that can't be blocked by private landowners, there's never really been enough political will to do large-scale land access reform like they did in the UK.

Again, over 90% of UK land is private, and large land barons control the vast majority of that. We just don't have a similarly widespread issue with land access in the US.


Yeah same thing happens around here. A dude here bought some land which surrounded an old popular access road to Cleveland national forest (socal), and promptly put a gate up... For a while it was the only convenient way to drive into the mountains from riverside county. Alternative routes were either closed from fires, closed to vehicles, or located on the other side of the mountain range. Lots of Facebook drama between this guy and people in the area trying to access the national forest. He has a camera pointed at the gate and regularly posts altercations and threatens to shoot people.


I don't get why people do those sorts of things. If you own land your #1 enemy is the government. In that situation it behooves you to do things to endear yourself to the community, your neighbors, etc.


Related but annoying question. What are you all using for public lands access and land ownership? This is a similar problem where the paid/closed apps (OnX et al) have very good data but serious issues for obvious reasons.


Caltopo is great for this. They require a subscription to download (raster) maps but you can cache a bunch of tiles before you leave to get the gist. These days this is one of the very scarce use cases I don't use OSMand for.


there is a plugin for US data in OSMand which can be enabled for BLM, USGS, and some others


I must be a bad researcher then because every paper I've written starts as a very vague "here are the overarching implications and important results". But the detailed order of results and the nuts and bolts of how to argue out the conclusions gets decided in drafting. Only the simplest of results I've had is essentially pre-written.


>"here are the overarching implications and important results".

That's the outline.

I doubt an LLM would help much in deciding how best to present the finer details, as they will be very specific to your particular manuscript.


Sincere reply assuming sincere question, the implication is that they are statistically much more likely to live near interstates and highways. Since historically land owned by poor 'disadvantaged groups' has been easier for state and federal governments to get their hands on.

The sentence, while poorly written, isn't saying that "health impacts don't matter for 'non-disadvantaged people'". A reading that is disingenuous.


I see. In the areas familiar to the authors, disadvantaged groups typically live closer to the source of the pollution.

Makes sense now. Thanks.


Which, at its core, is the point of science. There are plenty of things we know are real phenomena, that have important impacts, that we can't actually describe mechanistically. The entire idea of science is to be able to do that. And doing that well can be very hard.

Which is IMO why "science literacy" is so hard.

In an analogy: you can very easily point to chimps and humans and gorillas and say "those are similar, it's self evident" but it took a good few millennia for humans to be able to describe the hows and whys of the similarities in detail. Mechanistically.


Crucially, the intuitive thinking can be often wrong, and that’s precisely what science aims to avoid with all the extra effort.


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

Search: