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

Bored of It

paulrobertlloyd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–507 of 507 posts

Re: Bored of It

#501

Post by conductr »

KineticLensman wrote: post #344
conductr wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a CFO that used to work in healthcare. Have had many cases where a doctor tries to explain to me how accounting “should work” and I have to tell them we have this little thing call revenue recognition or GAAP or how accruals work, etc. basically the stuff covered in accounting 101. I’m used to fielding questions about numbers from all types but only doctors will immediately jump to telling you it’s wrong without…

> how accruals work Slightly off-topic but I worked at a UK research organisation that was a privatised entity recently spun-off from a civil-service organisation. The new CEO (who came from a finance background) got a tour of each department. He apparently listened to all of the tech evangelism from the department directors and then asked them how their department's accruals were doing. Those department directors wh…

This is a bit extreme. I've worked in many industries where the word 'accrual' is kind of internal to the finance/accounting department. I'd estimate over 70% of very good functional department heads I've worked with in the past would ask for clarification too. If they were still confused after further clarification or weren't able to comeback with an answer, then there is a bigger problem potentially with their ability to own a budget/manage spend.

This is kind of like punishing someone for not knowing your preferred buzzword. I've seen dozens of times that when a new high ranking person joins, their language quickly starts to become the defacto language of the org. If they like the "headwind" "tailwind" terminology, then it becomes what people everywhere start writing in the slides and how they discuss items of risk. You shouldn't be punishing people for asking for clarification (and there certainly a whole group of people that like to ask versus sitting silently then looking it up later). Hopefully there was more too it.

Re: Bored of It

#502

Post by adr1an »

swat535 wrote: post #418
hersko wrote: post #223

This is insane. We have created the greatest tool in human history and people are complaining. I can use it to help me code, fix modeling issues as I learn CAD, help me troubleshoot the issues in my two-stroke leafblower engine and can consistently walk me through complex leetcode algorithms. It literally knows everything and people still complain.

A tool that constantly generates incorrect information, lacks any real awareness or internal state, and doesn’t even recognize its own mistakes, even when you explicitly point them out is, frankly, pretty useless. Ever had this conversation with ChatGPT? - ChatGPT: Here's my solution! - You: This is wrong, you need to do X. - ChatGPT: You're right! My solution was wrong because [repeats what you said]. Here’s my revi…

This. Precise text auto-completer. Without reasoning or cognitive processes whatsoever, just a very marketable illusion of it. Despite the lies, a great tool.

As any tool, it takes knowledge and responsibility. Just lile the unix chainsaw.

Re: Bored of It

#504

Post by mrb »

dcminter wrote: post #499
mrb wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, but the "to it" is what's grammatically incorrect. It is correct to write: there is a "there" there. It would also be correct to write: there is a "there" to it. But it is grammatically incorrect to write: there is a "there" there to it.

Eh, maybe? But English grammar is consensus based. This is arguably bad grammar because people not knowing the cliché of "there there" had trouble understanding the intent, not because it's "wrong" under some hard citeable rules. Moreover I think you could argue the author is using the phrase as an abstract noun. Consider: That there's a solidity to it. That there's a "there" there to it. The first turns naturally to…

I see, thanks.

Re: Bored of It

#505

Post by coldpie »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #493
coldpie wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea is that people can't take new ideas in as they age makes zero sense to me. Hmm. My counter to this would be that I agree it isn't impossible, but would take such an enormous amount of voluntary effort that no one would spend it to completely update their information about the world. To give a non-controversial example, take dinosaurs. Almost everyone who grew up before about the year 2000 thinks of dinosau…

> that no one would spend it to completely update their information about the world. You don't need to "completely update their information about the world" to take in a new idea. Second time you're not making any sense.

It bums me out that you're not interested in engaging on this topic. I think it's super interesting!

Re: Bored of It

#506

Post by coldpie »

card_zero wrote: post #487
coldpie wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don't know either. Thanks to modern medicine, we already have enormous and growing problems with the accumulation of power and wealth in individuals. Currently, death is the only (legal/ethical) check we have on the people who have accumulated so much power that they are above the law. If we remove natural death, how can we ever get out from under the thumb of the uber-powerful? I'd really like to see more tho…

It's only ethical because we have no power to prevent their death. If research could be done that looked likely to extend lives, but we chose not to because we'd rather people die earlier, that's equivalent to stealthily killing them. We might as well be upfront about it, and have them slain for being too old, except then they'd tend to resist.

Right, so we have two competing ethical problems: extending life is good, but also, it removes the one (ethical) tool we have to handle the problem of accumulation of power in individuals. This is the conflict I'm grappling with. I don't have a good answer to the problem.

Re: Bored of It

#507

Post by skeaker »

coldpie wrote: post #194
bufferoverflow wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a problem for me. When you're 60 or 70, you will wish to have a body of a 25 year old. Dying early from rotting teeth is normal in nature, yet you probably brush, floss, and go to dentist.

I don't know how to reconcile this point of view, which I understand, with quotes like "science advances one funeral at a time," which I also understand. I understand the individual desire for advancing anti-aging techniques, but it also seems to contain extremely real risks of stagnating our sciences & societies. I can't tell whether anti-aging science is ethical or not.

You know what's stagnating? Being dead forever.
Post reply on HN