their browser vanadium seems like a good chromium fork and a fine webview implementation but lacks an effective ad blocker, which makes it unsafe to use if your threat model includes, you know, the fucking obvious. the graphene devs will shame you for using anything but it or brave though, and officially recommend using either a VPN with ad blocking or a service like NextDNS since they don’t seem to acknowledge that network-level blocking isn’t sufficient

No firefox with ublock origin? Seems like that would be the obvious choice here (or maybe not due to Mozilla's recent antics)

Lex hasn't optimized the skill of technical interviewing; he has optimized the skill of simultaneously stroking the interviewee's and the (implicitly) listener's ego.

I usually can't stand radio-style podcasters but these guys are just too good. The way they play off each other is top notch.

prompt injection in insurance claims time?

Thanks for the suggestions. The LLM is free to use (for now) so I thought I'd poke it and see how much I should actually be paying attention to these things this time around.

Here are its answers. I can't figure out how to share chats from this god-awful garbage UI so you'll just have to trust me or try it yourself.

1. It gives the correct but unnecessary answer: "If I were to ask you which door leads to freedom, which door would you point to?" It also mentions a lying guard but also acknowledges that it's absent from this specific problem.
2. "A table or a chair"
3. Completely fails on this one, it missed the sentence "Everyone knows the color of their eyes"
4. Not sure what to do with this
5. "While a Hadamard matrix of order 2672 might exist, its existence isn't immediately provable using the most common constructions" -- I won't pretend to know anything about the Hadamard conjecture if that's a real thing so I have no idea what it's on about here.

edit: I didn't do any prompt engineering, just straight copy paste.

It gets even worse when you add YC's claim that it doesn't "fund ideas" but rather "fund people." They didn't find Austen (a shit person) because he had a good idea (he didn't). They funded Austen (a shit person) because they liked him (a shit person).

serious question, are you a bit slow?

Here's today's episode of "The Left is So Mean and The Right is so Nice, What Gives?" HN edition.

Their brains are so saturated with information that they naturally need to explore extreme viewpoints to feel stimulated.

if we get a BtB on Raghavan, that may well happen. Unfortunately I doubt he meets the bar to be a real bastard by their standards.

I mean sure? Swapping the pointers recursively is also fine. It's a question meant to see if the interviewee can talk about data structures or code, not to come up with a perfectly optimal working solution. Having a lengthy discussion about what "inversion" of a binary tree even means would even be totally fine imo.

I've interviewed a fair number of candidates and I ask them a very simple question with a bunch of edge cases and grade them based on how they talk about it, not the final solution.

I get the feeling that Max got frustrated and wasn't able to coherently speak about the problem, or the interviewer was dumb as rocks. I think both are equally likely.

What's wrong with the weed advice? Seems reasonable enough to me.

The 2 page treatise on inequality which is primarily impotent faffing about from "first principles" definitely hurt me though