Look, as a software dev myself, I really like that my company lets us use our computers the way we see fit. Pre- or post-AI with no restrictive lockdown. Been there, hated that.
But I totally get the freaking out over "normal devs". The amount of stuff most people think is reasonable, AI or not, is mind boggling. For myself of course I like to just be able to be responsible myself. But as a security team I'd also be freaking out.
Like, the amount of people that find our super boring, totally corporate "security training videos", helpful and insightful and "oh dang I'd never have thought of that!" is mind boggling all by itself. Never mind any actual security training that'd be useful to someone with half a brain. You can literally just click through the 8+ hours of stuff you're supposed to watch / answer / do in 30 minutes.
I use Claude. I use Codex. I've never heard of or used Meta AI. Nor do I have a Facebook account. Never have, never will.
I am also a software developer. So while the numbers of "people" that use one AI or another may be higher than either of these, it's not a useful metric for myself.
That's fine. I'm not making a value judgement about which LLMs you should use, if any.
I'm only pushing back against someone thinking "oh HN talks about Claude a lot, therefore Claude must be extremely popular". The information bubble is a real problem.
This. Same timeframe and I've lived through both lots of lightning storms and in areas with lots of power failures. Some of them intermittent and essentially caused by transformers blowing up. Like earlier this winter, we had multiple storms where you'd hear a transformer blow up, in many cases even seeing the sky light up as well from it, power going out, couple seconds, power coming back, next transformer blowing out, rinse, repeat.
On the other hand I've read about plenty of stories of the "cheap" UPSs you'd usually buy as a consumer (not to name any brands coz I've never had any) actually causing such issues in the first place. Without any actual surges from the grid.
That said, being totally not superstitious (for real, but someone's gonna "kill me" if they find out I wrote this and something dies from a surge...), now I guess I need to knock on wood like seventeen times ...
I do use surge protectors when we're on generator power temporarily.
The things people often call "transformers blowing up" are usually not transformers blowing up.
Instead, it's usually just overhead wires that are too close or literally touching, often from influences like wind and ice. The electricity arcs between the wires, creating bright blue-white flashes that can be seen from far away, sometimes with instantaneous heat that makes hunks of metal wire evaporate explosively. It can be violent and loud, and repetitious as different parts of even a single run fail.
Transformers can certainly blow up, but that's less common. They're (generally) filled with oil for cooling purposes, and they're massive things that tend to take time to get hot. A failed transformer can produce arcing and blue-white light, but if things are that hot then the oil is also ready to burn.
And when the oil burns it isn't blue-white -- it burns with about the same yellow-orange color we saw the last time we accidentally flambéed dinner on the kitchen stove, or a Hollywood fireball.
A bright flash without a fire is probably not a transformer.
Haha, I hear you. But yes, it really is transformers blowing up sometimes. Sometimes it really is just branches blowing up the line, sure.
A branch hitting a wire, happenes all the time here too. Lots of trees in this community. The video of a transformer you shared: that's not the transformer I'm talking about. That's at a transformer station.
And yes, I know it's transformers and not just wires (but also wires do happen definitely) coz I do walk the neighborhood regularly and I can tell when a transformer is new vs. old up there. Ours is old. The ones a few streets over sometimes are very new and I see the Hydro trucks go by the next day(s) to make them new ;)
Again, like seventeen times knock on wood but the ones next to us have not actually blown up. But three streets over, seen the new ones. Literally last weekend, we had an ice storm come through and while no blowouts we could see or hear, the outage map showed plenty of failure.
Residental-scale transformers can and do explode. Shorts happen not-infrequently with freezing rain and ice storms especially causing issues - the internal oil gets displaced by the water, and the dirty water causes an internal short. It wipes out power to a few blocks here when it happens, but we get an outage due to it every year or two.
But when the wind is whipping along on a warm day and there are bright flashes and audible bangs, that's (usually!) not signs of transformers blowing up... even though the popular vernacular often erroneously describes it that way.
It happens. The power company was very unhappy with my boss for destroying one of their transformers. The thing is while circuit breakers react very quickly to extreme overcurrent situations (shorts) they're much slower to react to loads which are only a bit over the limit, and if short enough won't react at all. Very common with heavy motors.
And that's exactly what the problem was--we had a whole bunch of really heavy motors. Getting ready to start for the day you flip on the switches and the big machines start to spin. The transformer on the pole was rated higher than the main breaker for the plant--but the transformer apparently was more sensitive to the temporary loads. Once the problem was identified it was resolved by staging it, instead of flipping them all on they were flipped on over 5 minutes.
It's not just cheap UPSes, it's cheap surge protectors as well. They exist because the vendor can throw in a MOV costing a few cents and increase the price of the power strip by 50%, not because they're any good. MOVs are sacrificial components which have either degraded to uselessness by the time they're actually needed or, if they're still working, can explode or catch fire from the energy dissipated. Even if they don't, all they're doing is converting an x-kV spike on active into an around-x-kV spike on neutral or ground. If you want to do it properly, use a series tracking filter, not a "surge protector".
One scenario: there's a short circuit somewhere, say rats chewing through insulation. This can cause a very high current through the short. A non-inverter 4500 watt 120 volt generator might have 0.2 ohms coil resistance, so the short circuit current can hit 170 volts / 0.2 ohm = 850 amps. When the shorted branch's circuit breaker trips, the inductance in the generating windings wants to keep that 850 amps flowing for at least a few microseconds, and it gets distributed across everything else that's still connected. Depending on what else is connected (hopefully including some surge protectors) the peak voltage can get into many kilovolts.
The circuit is something like this:
voltage source -- parasitic inductor --+- circuit breaker -- short
|
+- circuit breaker -- your PC
More generally, for the previous poster, look at what happens when a magnetic field collapses suddenly, you can get kilovolt spikes. There's probably a ton of YouTube videos demonstrating this in various ways, it sounds like the sort of thing that Electroboom would do. Normally this is handled via snubber circuits which dissipate the energy before it can do anything, but in exceptional cases it could end up going where it shouldn't.
Definitely use quality surge protectors on expensive equipment connected to generators.
PSA: UPSes and GFCI/GFI extension cords won't work properly when connected to a stand-alone generator with a bonded neutral. I've tried using enterprise UPSes on such generators, but they absolutely won't work. In such scenarios, debond the generator's ground from neutral, apply a very large warning label to it being debonded, and drive a massive ground rod electrode into the ground as close to the generator as possible and ground the neutral there. This does work and is much safer because there's a stable voltage reference source. It's more of a hassle but can be necessary for some off grid and temporary scenarios.
GFCI works correctly either way. Their operating mode doesn't care at all about ground: Whether bonded, not bonded, or not even present (look, ma! only two wires!), they still perform the same way.
They respond to an imbalance in current flow betwixt line and neutral. What goes out must return; if it doesn't, then switch off.
> In such scenarios, debond the generator's ground from neutral
eeeeep. Please for the love of all that is holy, CONTACT AN ELECTRICIAN before messing around with that - or before creating a ground bond where none should be (i.e. TT grid [1]). You may end up endangering yourself if you do not exactly know what you are doing - in the case of TT, you get ground potential difference current from other parts of the grid flowing to ground via your generator's bond. Best case you're getting problems with electrochemical corrosion (including in your foundation), worst case enough current flows to turn your bond wire into a thermal fuse.
Also, take great care if your grounding is provided via municipal water service, or if your original grounding rod has dried out to the point it's ineffective.
Let me repeat: LET ELECTRICIANS DEAL WITH GROUNDING AND SURGE PROTECTION. Floating grounds and improper ground connections CAN BE LETHAL OR POSE A SERIOUS FIRE RISK.
AND YES THAT INCLUDES "ISLAND" SCENARIOS OR EMERGENCY POWER INPUTS (e.g. via CEE plugs and transfer switches).
I'm not sure I'd leave something like this to an electrician. Or if so at least make that electrician be experienced in this field. I think you'd want an electrical engineer to be involved with the plan to some degree.
Electrical engineers don’t know code requirements and wiring guidelines for household electrical wiring. They’re absolutely not the correct default. Electricians with specialization in generator setups, sure, but an electrician engineer on average is likely going to be more uninformed on code requirements than an electrician.
Electrical engineers know the theory but lack the practical knowledge which grid form is used at your specific address (yes, here in Germany we have a few towns where one half side of a street runs TT and the other one is already migrated to TN-C or TN-C-S).
An electrician specializing in lightning protection, uninterruptible power installation or in radio installations can sort out all of that far better than an engineer can.
That's an extreme edge-case and a strawman. Anyone operating temporary equipment on a generator during a severe storm will obviously unplug sensitive stuff to not take unnecessary chances regardless of safety precautions already in place.
Ground rods are required in certain situations according to the NEC.
Ground rods are for lightning protection, transient surges (over voltage), and induced surges; not for short protection, ground faults, or making ordinary extension cord use of bonded generators "safer".
Typically, they're required whenever it's a system that powers a building on its own, i.e., off-grid setup or with a floating neutral generator connected via a switched neutral transfer switch.
You can unplug everything and open all the switches, but a nearby lightning strike will still fry your generator through that unbounded ground rod. Lightning ground potential is very eager to take the shortcut to your other ground rods through a few millimeters of insulation and open switches on the path through your generator and house wiring, when the alternative might be tens of meters of dirt :)
I don't care what the NEC doesn't say, NFPA 780 says you have to bond all ground rods.
You're over-selling the minimum level of intelligence in homo sapiens.
What you're stating is your wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong. I'd also like what you say to be true. It very much is not. Quite the opposite, which is why salespeople "work".
The amount of AI bullshit Senior+ level developers just paste to me as truth is astonishing.
I do think we have to distinguish two things though.
It's not really bad to ask someone to do a design session with them and "build their product with them from scratch" isn't inherently bad. That's actually pretty neat if you ask me.
What's bad is if there's only a single answer and that's whatever they actually built themselves, which might be a pile of thrown together startup poo that was never cleaned up. But you have the same problem with all sorts of "needless trivia" type questions.
And then do you really want to work at a company, where you can't have a proper "pros and cons of different approaches" type of discussion? If you got hired, you'd have those kinds of discussions with them on an ongoing basis. Bad on the company for letting that person do the hiring but they got what they deserved so to speak.
Just to make an analogy:
If they simply ding you for using 4 spaces coz they use 8, that's bad.
If they ask you why you use 4 spaces, they use 8, give them pros and cons and are there any other approaches and what are the pros and cons of those? That's a good interview so to speak. As an interviewer I would give bonus points if the candidate says something like "I used 4 spaces because I thought that's what you guys were probably using coz everyone's moved away from 8 spaces but secretly I love usings tabs and setting tabwidth to what I want but in reality it really really doesn't matter as long as it's consistent across the codebase as humans can get used to almost everything and this one isn't worth fighting over. Linters and formatters exist for a reason".
Linux kernel still uses 8 I believe. IIRC wide indentation+narrow pages were chosen partly to encourage using functions and avoiding deep nested logic.
Not because you use 2 spaces. You can argue 2 spaces and the pros and cons and how horizontal scrolling is an issue. One question back would be for example if that means you have huge run-on files where a single function does everything and that's why you need like 17 levels of indentation and that's why only using 2 spaces for each becomes important to you. And then you'd need to argue how that's better for visibility and what might actually be worse about it. If you can do all that, you're hired (if the rest of the interview goes well :P )
Who still uses 8? Isn't that like a COBOL thing?
That works as a flippant comment when we're joking about code indentation after working together for a while and we get along great. As the one and only answer in an interview, you're out. That's quite disrespectful and no it's not a COBOL thing, I've seen (and used) 8 spaces and argued for tabs or 4 much later than COBOL days. In fact I've never written a single line of COBOL.
Btw, at an old job, some joker developer added or copied 1, and broke the whole testbed. It was quite funny. I came over to the sourcecode hosted in Gitlab, ran my regexes that look for naughty characters. Found it after it ate the devs for half a day.
More than a decade ago I suggested this as a compromise as a joke, but then decided to try it out - ended up liking it more than any other options and have used it for all my personal stuff ever since.
I just recently read about something that requires - hard requirement - 3 spaces for indentation. Most likely read it here on HN. Makes me sick to even think about.
At this point, we think using AI and being able to use AI effectively is a skill in and of itself. When you're hired, you'll have access to AI. You'd be expected to be able to use said AI effectively.
So, we still give you a FizzBuzz. You can use AI. Even if we told you not to use AI, we know almost everyone would use AI. But you have to understand the FizzBuzz and be able to explain it to us and make changes to it "live". The amount of people that get weeded out just by having to explain the code they "coded themselves" is staggering (even pre-AI, even on a take home where you had no "OMG I suck at live coding" pressure).
It's been a year since I've actively given out take-homes for hiring, but I'm not sure I agree that everyone will use AI. I designed half the questions to be impossible for current-gen AI to answer without the candidate actually knowing what's going on [0], and only ~1% of candidates who responded did poorly on that half and not the other half (and, if we're worried about LLMs being better than I think, not all that many candidates passed most questions either).
[0] The most reliable strategy I've found for that is choosing questions where the wrong answer is the right answer for some much more common question. Actually spending a few seconds and solving the problem easily lets a human pass, but an LLM with insufficient weights or training data (all of them) doesn't stand a chance.
Thanks for clarifying - I kinda get the idea but would love to see an example for this.
I’ve mostly given up on all of the standard techniques for interviewing sadly, just because “using ai” makes a lot of them trivial, and have resorted to the good old fashioned interview, where I screen for drive, values and root cause seeking, and let people learn tech/frameworks/etc themselves.
But I was wondering, isn’t a take home question still good, if you give a more open ended and ambitious task, and let people vibe code the solution, review the result but ask for the prompt/session as well?
People will be doing that during normal work anyway, so why not test that directly?
One such question (obviously tailored to the role I'm hiring for) is asking whether SoA or AoS inputs will yield a faster dot-product implementation and whether the answer changes for small vs large inputs, also asking why that would be the case.
I typically offer a test with a small number of such questions since each one individually is noisy, but overall the take-home has good signal.
> why not test that directly?
The big thing is that you don't have enough time to probe everything about a candidate, especially if you're being respectful of their time and not burning too much of yours. Your goal is to maximize information gain with respect to the things you care about while minimizing any negative feelings the candidate has about your company.
I could be wrong, but vibe coding feels like another skill which is more efficient to probe indirectly. In your example, I would care about the prompt/session, mostly wouldn't care about the resulting code, and still don't think I would have enough information to judge whether they were any good. There are things I would want to test beyond the vibe coding itself.
In particular, one thing I think is important is being able to reason about code and deeply understand the tradeoffs being made. Even if vibe coding is your job and you're usually able to go straight from Claude to prod, it's detrimental (for the roles I'm looking at) to not be able to easily spot memory leaks, counter-productive OO abstractions, a lack of productive OO abstractions, a host of concurrency issues LLMs are kind of just bad at right now, and so on. My opinion is that the understanding needed to use LLMs effectively (for the code I work on) is much more expensive to develop than any prompt engineering, so I'd rather test those other things directly.
Yes, that's why I said, we have you explain what you "vibe coded" and then also do an actual live coding part where you have to make further changes. Via screen sharing.
The amount of people that can't even navigate "their own" code is astonishing. Never mind explaining what it does or making changes.
The plumber knows how many inches per foot the pipe has to drop in order for the poop to flow away and not get stuck in the pipe. It's easy enough to either not drop it enough and everything gets stuck or for it to drop too much and the water flows away but the poop stays in place. And they're the ones that actually make it happen and their clients really do care about that in the end. Without knowing this the plumber is nothing. They don't necessarily need to know they why and especially don't need to calculate it out!
Some mathematician can probably calculate that properly. Some mathematician probably first did calculate that out to prove it. I'm not entirely certain that a mathematician was the reason that we know what drop we need. A lot of things in "real life" were "empirically discovered" and used and done for centuries before a mathematician proved it.
Exceptions prove the rule, like when we calculate(d) things out for space travel before ever attempting it ;)
They weren't fake long file names. They were actual long files names but of course the operating system that didn't support long files names didn't know what to do with the (very real) long file names. It only knew the 8.3 file name that was also set for compatibility.
Of course it sucked if you looked at or worked with DOS based apps. But it was one of those things that was always good about Microsoft Windows: Backwards compatibility.
They literally would build in (bug-) compatibility layers for specific games, where if they detected you were running a particular game, they'd not use the fixed or optimized code paths, but the old ones / emulate / patch things as the game expected them to be. And that was not because Windows was buggy and the games were good. It was the other way around. Games used trickery and internal knowledge that they shouldn't and if/when MS would block those paths or change internals, those games would stop working or crash.
One of the very first things I always do in any OS is to set the desktop background to solid color, usually black. I almost never ever will see it, coz there's always going to be a window on top of it, except upon startup for some brief period of time or if I accidentally minimize everything.
I work with full screen windows. Always (tiny number of exceptional cases maybe). I switch between windows with Alt+Tab when necessary. I also have a relatively small screen, both for work and personal stuff (14" for at least 10 years now).
Look, as a software dev myself, I really like that my company lets us use our computers the way we see fit. Pre- or post-AI with no restrictive lockdown. Been there, hated that.
But I totally get the freaking out over "normal devs". The amount of stuff most people think is reasonable, AI or not, is mind boggling. For myself of course I like to just be able to be responsible myself. But as a security team I'd also be freaking out.
Like, the amount of people that find our super boring, totally corporate "security training videos", helpful and insightful and "oh dang I'd never have thought of that!" is mind boggling all by itself. Never mind any actual security training that'd be useful to someone with half a brain. You can literally just click through the 8+ hours of stuff you're supposed to watch / answer / do in 30 minutes.
reply