Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The bottleneck was never the code

thetypicalset.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 446 posts

Re: The bottleneck was never the code

#161

Post by jmaw »

TheLudd wrote: post #107
paldepind2 wrote: post #100

From the article: > Jevons Paradox: when something gets cheaper, you tend to use more of it, not less. That's a butchering of Jevons paradox. What's stated is not a paradox, but a very natural effect. Obviously usage of something goes up when it gets cheaper. What Jevons paradox actually describes is the situation where usage of a resource becomes more efficient (which means less of it is needed for a given task), bu…

Should the paradox not be that we PAY more for it? Or, if some process is made more effective, i.e. takes shorter time, we spend more time in that process.

Yes, I believe you are correct (but imprecise which is why the other commenter disagreed with you).

We pay less per unit, but we pay more in total.

Re: The bottleneck was never the code

#162

Post by Jensson »

wuliwong wrote: post #137
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s kind of just strawman with an origin story isn’t it?

I think the Goomba is distinct. Strawman is disingenuously representing an argument, Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app.

> Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app.

Its because it comes from the same political faction. In general people are open about A when A seems palatable, and openly B when B seems palatable, but they almost never admit to do that when its obviously wrong to do so.

That is the rational part of the fallacy, even if these are different sets of people you can still tell they are biased since they never appear in the threads where its obvious they are in the wrong.

For example, lets say in a thread where a white cop shoots a black guy you find a lot of republicans say "this is just statistics, nothing to see here". Then in another thread where a black cop shoots a white guy republicans pour in and argue this must be racism and we should investigate! Maybe it isn't the same set of people, but its still a strong sign of problematic bias that they only choose to speak up in those particular threads and not the others.

Every political side everywhere does this, and that is why people started calling that out.

Re: The bottleneck was never the code

#163

Post by nottorp »

loeg wrote: post #150
nottorp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. It's annoying and disruptive to be interrupted when doing work that requires deep focus. Steering a LLM also requires deep focus. Unless you want to end up on accidentally quadratic or have a CVE named after your project.

How can it? You prompt it, then wait minutes+ for it to come back. It's the opposite of flow state.

Flow comes after when you verify what it did...

Re: The bottleneck was never the code

#165

Post by allannienhuis »

loeg wrote: post #150
nottorp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. It's annoying and disruptive to be interrupted when doing work that requires deep focus. Steering a LLM also requires deep focus. Unless you want to end up on accidentally quadratic or have a CVE named after your project.

How can it? You prompt it, then wait minutes+ for it to come back. It's the opposite of flow state.

I get much better results the more thought I put into crafting my prompt. including using llms to help create that prompt. There's definitely a declining rate of return on that time, but thinking about the problem and carefully describing the context can take fairly deep thought. I do think it's in shorter bursts than when doing all of the work, but I get that same feeling of 'bah, where was I?' if I get interrupted while creating the prompt for a more complex feature. On the other hand, I spend a lot less time in flow state while debugging - it's way easier to describe a bug to an llm (often can just paste in the exception or link to error log).

Re: The bottleneck was never the code

#168

Post by mihailupu »

luodaint wrote: post #20

The paper hits the nail right on the head, but it misses the mark on the next constraint: how to decide what to build. In the old days when writing code took up a lot of resources, the constraint was self-correcting since being off in your implementation was obvious enough that the error could be easily seen after three months of work on the wrong feature. Today, you could spend five wrong efforts in the same amount…

[flagged]

Re: The bottleneck was never the code

#169

Post by [deleted] »

Jensson wrote: post #162
wuliwong wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Goomba is distinct. Strawman is disingenuously representing an argument, Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app.

> Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app. Its because it comes from the same political faction. In general people are open about A when A seems palatable, and openly B when B seems palatable, but they almost never admit to do that when its obviously wrong to do so. That is the rational part of the fallacy, even if these are diff…

[deleted]

Re: The bottleneck was never the code

#170

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Jensson wrote: post #162
wuliwong wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Goomba is distinct. Strawman is disingenuously representing an argument, Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app.

> Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app. Its because it comes from the same political faction. In general people are open about A when A seems palatable, and openly B when B seems palatable, but they almost never admit to do that when its obviously wrong to do so. That is the rational part of the fallacy, even if these are diff…

Is it true that they don't appear in the threads where you feel it's obvious they're in the wrong? Or do they just get upvoted less in those threads so you don't see it when they do appear?
Post reply on HN