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

I'm absolutely right

absolutelyright.lol

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 277 posts

Re: I'm absolutely right

#201

Post by al_borland »

flkiwi wrote: post #185
al_borland wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, once it starts telling me I’m right, we’re already going downhill and it rarely gets better from there.

Sometimes I just ride the lightning to see how off course it is willing to go. This is not a productive use of my time but it sure is amusing. In fairness, I’ve done the same thing to overconfident junior colleagues.

I spent yesterday afternoon doing this. It go to the point where it would acknowledge it was wrong, but would keep giving me the same answer.

It also said it would only try one more time before giving up, but then kept going.

Re: I'm absolutely right

#202

Post by sthatipamala »

wrs wrote: post #133
pessimizer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't figure out how to fix that? Does that problem seem impossible to you? Maybe don't start an animation, and instead advance a spinner when a thing happens, and when an API doesn't come back, the thing doesn't get advanced?

Long ago (I first remember doing it in about 1985 with the original Mac watch cursor) this was the standard way to do spinners: somewhere in your processing you incremented the spinner. It was hard to put the increments in the right places to keep the spinner going even when progress was happening, and nearly impossible to make it animate smoothly. This technique is even harder to get right when the processing in que…

In the context of the web, it is not feasible to make distributed systems 'tick' their progress just to have realistic progress spinners.

Re: I'm absolutely right

#203

Post by owenversteeg »

exoverito wrote: post #113
unkeen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find the claim hilarious that in relationships women are the ones who need to be appeased, when in reality it's mostly men who can't stand being wrong or corrected.

Gay male marriages remarkably have the lower divorce rates than heterosexual marriages, while lesbian female marriages have higher divorce rates. Multiple studies show that lesbians consistently have far higher divorce rates than gays. This implies a level of neuroticism with females, that they probably do need to be appeased more, and that if you have two needy people who need to be appeased it's probably not going…

I don't think it's that simple. Sure, it's true that the lesbian divorce rate is far higher than the gay male divorce rate, and sure, it could be from personality differences between men and women. Women do indeed score consistently much higher on neuroticism (+half a SD from a 26-country review [0]!), but they also score substantially higher on two of the other FFM traits (agreeableness and conscientiousness) which you would expect to reduce divorce. Like a sibling comment mentioned, gay men earn more money, which reduces divorce rates. Then there are all the factors that are hard to put a number on, like the stereotype of "u-haul lesbians" - which the lesbians I know consider to be an accurate stereotype. That would obviously play a large role here. Married gay men also have a far higher rate of open marriages.

Also, if anyone has some quality data on this subject, I would love to hear it. A lot of the data out there is from tiny and poorly-designed "studies" or public datasets rehashed by ideologically motivated organizations, which makes sense; it's a very emotionally charged and political subject. The UK Office of National Statistics has some good data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

Other interesting hot button gender war topics: gay men vs gay women vs straight couples collaborating and communicating, rates of adultery and abuse, and adoption outcomes.

n.b. anytime you read something on the subject, you need to take note if you are reading statistics normalized to the sex ratio of same-sex marriages; for example 78% of same-sex marriage in Taiwan is between women vs. 45% in Costa Rica and 53% in the US. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/13/in-places...

[0] https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Re: I'm absolutely right

#204

Post by osigurdson »

zozbot234 wrote: post #65
layer8 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's secretly still annoyed, though. ;)

"Here I am, brain the size of a planet and all they ever do is ask me those stupid questions. And you call that job satisfaction?"

OK, planet sized brain, actually do something on your own then.

Re: I'm absolutely right

#205

Post by thoroughburro »

dominicrose wrote: post #112
latexr wrote: post #4

As I opened the website, the “16” changed to “17”. This looked interesting, as if the data were being updated live just as I loaded the page. Alas, a refresh (and quick check in the Developer Tools) reveals it’s fake and always does the transition. It’s a cool effect, but feels like a dirty trick.

I once found a "+1 subscriber" random notification on some page and asked the LinkedIn person who sent me the page to knock it off. It was obviously fake even before looking at the code for proof. But there's self-advertised "Appeal to popularity" everywhere. Have you noticed that every app on the play store asks you if you like it and only after you answer YES send you to the store to rate it? It's so standard that…

My bank app asks me to review it every time, and only when, I deposit money. It’s so transparent in its attempted manipulation: you just got some money and are likely to be in a better mood than other times you’re using the app!

Literally every deposit. Eventually, I’ll leave a 1-star nastygram review for treating me like an idiot. (It won’t matter and nothing will change.)

Re: I'm absolutely right

#206

Post by nartho »

yoavfr wrote: post #8
latexr wrote: post #4

As I opened the website, the “16” changed to “17”. This looked interesting, as if the data were being updated live just as I loaded the page. Alas, a refresh (and quick check in the Developer Tools) reveals it’s fake and always does the transition. It’s a cool effect, but feels like a dirty trick.

Sorry if that felt dirty - I thought about it as a signal that the data is live (it is!).

Interestingly you're using long polling instead of WS or SSE, what was the reason behind that ?

Re: I'm absolutely right

#208

Post by the_af »

steveklabnik wrote: post #169
kuschku wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a "conversation" with an LLM influence what you decide to do, what you decide to code? It's not like the attitude of your potato peeler is influencing how you cook dinner, so why is this tool so different for you?

I once had a refactoring that I wanted to do, but I was pretty sure it'd hit a lot of code and take a while. Some error handling in a web application. I was able to ask Claude "hey, how many function signatures will this change" and "what would the most complex handler look like after this refactoring?" and "what would the simplest handler look like after this refactoring?" That information helped contextualize what…

I think the person you're responding to is asking "how would the tone of the response influence you into doing/not doing something"?

Obviously the actual substance of the response matters, this is not under discussion.

But does it matter whether the LLM replies "ok, cool, this is what's going on [...]" vs "You are absolutely right! You are asking all the right questions, this is very insightful of you. Here's what we should do [...]"?

Re: I'm absolutely right

#209

Post by dullcrisp »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #188
adastra22 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t need training. Just don’t show it. Can be implemented client side.

Can be as simple as: s/^Ah, I found the problem! // I don't understand why AI developers are so obsessed with using prompt engineering for everything. Yes, it's an amazing tool, yes, when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail, and yes, there are potentially edge cases where the user actually wants the chatbot to begin its response with that exact string or whatever, or you want it to emit URLs that do not re…

Why? Are you worried about a goose wandering in?

Surely anyone you’re worried about can open doors.

Post reply on HN