411–420 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s reduce this to absurdity: I think you only wanted clarification of CTF (Capture the Flag) and not AI (Artificial Intelligence) and not GPT-4 (Generative Pre-Trained Transformer version 4) and not CLI (Command Line Interface) and not MCP (Model Context Protocol) and not LLM (Large Language Model) Quoting TFA (The Fucking Article): “just adapt bro” lol at the BGP example
For people who are confused by this comment: lol = laughing out loud!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I've interviewed people like this 15 years ago. Degrees and experience mean nothing in this field. The best predictor I found was personal passion projects. Let them get as nerdy as possible, then you will see pretty quickly where their skills are at and what their limits are. And you will immediately filter out people who just studied CS because they heard you can make good money.
Maybe. There are certainly people in all fields who are book smart and did well in classes but are useless at actually practicing their field (not to mention people who cheated in school and got away with it and aren't even that), and it is worth filtering them out. But I think it is weird that CS expects good workers to have these passion projects. Do we expect civil engineers to build bridges in their back yard on…
“solve”, why not solution? Like “spend” and not expenditure, why use the verb as a noun and not care about grammar?
The first paragraph on anything with an acronym in it should explain the bloody acronym. I assumed CTF was an encryption standard, given the headline. It was only coming here and reading the comments that made me realise it's a game-format ("Capture The Flag").
I don't know what to tell you. If you don't know what "CTF" is you're not the target of this blog post. It's like stumbling upon article "What's new in HTTP/2" and complaining that "HTTP" acronym is not explained. I don't mean that everyone must know what CTF is, but sometimes it's OK to write things just for your community (CTF community in this case), not for general population.
1) You see a headline on HN about some open format being broken by frontier-level AI. You don't recognise the acronym.
2) You visit the site, you read the first few paragraphs, you still have no effing clue what the site is talking about
3) You come back to HN and read the comments to figure out WTF is going on. Oh, it's just some game style, so not a Cryptographic Trust File, or something you have to care about after all.
The point is you can't know what some opaque acronym is about until you visit the source of something that will hopefully explain this opaque acronym. Leaving the site being still none-the-wiser is a failure of the site, in my view. If you don't agree, that's fine, we're adults, we can differ, but it seems like a valid complaint to me.
FWIW (this means "for what it's worth" :) I'm not railing against acronyms in general, and HTTP is probably one of the most-used ones on the internet so I'm not sure it really applies as a good counterpoint. Using CTF without an explanation is more like using SSTP (Secure socket tunneling protocol) without one, IMHO (this means In My Humble Opinion :) ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> computers do not help human education in the slightest I had no access to anyone who could teach me calculus as a kid except Khan Academy, so I think this is a gross exaggeration. But I agree in the end, that all my "real" learning did come from pen-and-paper practice, not watching videos.
> except Khan Academy But that's not using "computers" as a computer but as a video player. When evaluating whether computers are "good for learning", I don't think we should include using a computer as a video player, a book, or even flash cards. It should be things a computers uniquely offer which a books, paper, videos and a physical reference library cannot. Based on the results of deploying hundreds of millions…
Must I beg to have an acronym spelled out a least once, the first time it's used? Even if you assume 90% of readers already know, the other 10% (including me, in this case) will thank you, it doesn't take much effort, and it expands the reach of your communication or idea. Exceptions for cases where the acronym is just so well known that a lot of people don't even know what it stands for even though they know the con…
CTF stands for Capture the Flag. So with that definition you have exactly zero more information about the article then without it. So I assume next you want a short description of what it actually means, like "CTF (Capture the Flag) are security competitions where the objective is to break...", which is completely ridiculous to include in an article aimed specifically at the CTF crowd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CTF stands for Capture the Flag. So with that definition you have exactly zero more information about the article then without it. So I assume next you want a short description of what it actually means, like "CTF (Capture the Flag) are security competitions where the objective is to break...", which is completely ridiculous to include in an article aimed specifically at the CTF crowd.
It is easier to search for keywords (Capture the Flag) vs acronyms (CTF) which likely resolve to other terms as well. Child trust fund is the first result when I put CTF into Google. Admittedly searching CTF security solves that issue. A quick link to an article on CTF to make the post digestible by outsiders seems reasonable enough.
To me it doesn't seem reasonable at all. It's just entitled at best.
Must I beg to have an acronym spelled out a least once, the first time it's used? Even if you assume 90% of readers already know, the other 10% (including me, in this case) will thank you, it doesn't take much effort, and it expands the reach of your communication or idea. Exceptions for cases where the acronym is just so well known that a lot of people don't even know what it stands for even though they know the con…
Apart from everything else people have said in response to this, it's rude to presume that an article has HN as an audience simply by dint of it being available for us to link to. It's totally reasonable for people to write for an audience they know understands these terms. So, in fact, you must not beg to have authors include courtesy definitions for you. That's not reasonable. Instead, you should simply ask here, o…
I guess this goes in parallel with the whole building for one narrative
And while I have ideas to excite and promote LLM use in these style games I've still not been able to crack the human collaboration component that is at the forefront of all of this change