501–510 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's wild. Google's AI summaries are so frequently wrong . I hope you understand that you're getting bad info and not knowing which bits are bad.
I mean in this case it's pretty quick to tell that it's not right, try sam deploy and it fails, but for the most part it's working, it seems straight out of AWS's docs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not against the spirit of what you're saying, but are you aware the show itself made a meta episode about how comical it was that Homer could live in a house like that? That was never meant to be a reflection of current living conditions. That show is not the best example of what you're describing. https://youtu.be/axHoy0hnQy8?t=29
With that said, that episode is from the 8th season in a time where things were already becoming more unaffordable. The time between the episodes explains why this episode exists.
To be clear, I agree that houses are way less affordable now, which was the point of this thread. I just don't think fictional TV is a good reference point for that. They famously exaggerate the spaces people live in so they can film better angles or block different scenes. See "Friends"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell have I just read (or at least skimmed)?? I cannot understand if the author is: a) serious, but we live on different planets b) serious with the idea, tongue-in-check in the style and using a lot of self-irony c) an ironic piece with some real idea d) he is mocking AI maximalists
There was discussion about this here a couple of weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46458936 Steve Yegge's a famous developer, this is not a joke :) You could say he is an AI maximalist, from your options I'd go with (b) serious with the idea, tongue-in-check in the style and using a lot of self-irony. It is exaggerated, but this is how he sees things ending up eventually. This is real software. If thing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then your job has turned into designing solutions, and asking a (sometimes unreliable) LLM to make them for you. If you keep at it, soon you'll accumulate enough cognitive debt to become a fossil, knowing what has to be done, but not quite how it is done.
Do you know how to write the code you write in assembler instead of a higher level language? How many of your peers do? Most "know what has to be done, but not quite how it is done". This is just another level of abstraction. I learnt the lesson 30+ years ago that while it was (and still occasionally is) useful to understand the principles of assembly, it had become useless to write assembly outside of a few narrow n…
Actually, I do, but then you could ask me if I can develop in machine language, and I'll hate to reply no. The abstraction is not the point, but the isolation from the core task. If you're a brilliant fashion designer, you even know how to sew, but outsource your work to an Asian sweatshop, you can never be sure it's well done until you see the result.
Using an abstraction is not the same as using a black box.
> I deliver far more now - with or without AI - than I did when I wrote assembler, or C for that matter. I deliver more again with AI than without.
> That's what matters.
Also, in some disciplines, quality sometimes matters more than quantity.
This seems to confirm my feeling when using AI too much. It's easy to get started, but I can feel my brain engaging less with the problem than I'm used to. It can form a barrier to real understanding, and keeps me out of my flow. I recently worked on something very complex I don't think I would have been able to tackle as quickly without AI; a hierarchical graph layout algorithm based on the Sugiyama framework, using…
My "actual job" isn't to write code, but to solve problems. Writing code has just typically been how I've needed to solve those problems. That has increasingly shifted to "just" reviewing code and focusing on the architecture and domain models. I get to spend more time on my actual job.
The place you need to get to is understanding that you are being asked to ensure a problem is solved.
You’re only causing a larger problem by “solving” issues without both becoming an SME and ensuring that knowledge can be held by the organization, at all levels that the problem affects (onboarding, staff, project management, security, finance, auditors, c-suite.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a track now for people to stay in engineering and get paid more then their manager
That "track" gets increasingly illusory the farther you walk it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noting that it is straw man to connect my argument with vaccine skepticism. The mass psychosis was that early on in the COVID response, we were hearing so much early advice from people that were ahead of CDC/FDA, things like: - Masks work (CDC/FDA discouraged, then flip-flopped and took credit for these things) despite it originating from Scott Alexander and skeptic communities like his, I also heard it from Tim Ferr…
> CDC/FDA discouraged, then flip-flopped and took credit for these things There is a documentary called "Everything under control". In it they explained why this happened. Basically they were scared that the public were going to buy out the masks that were needed by medical staff. > Ivermectin Same documentary, this was started by Musk. It does nothing and is dangerous.
One question, have you ever considered the opposite of what you're saying to be true, or looked for the evidence for that? Saying because I've heard of and looked at both opinions you've expressed in your comment and heard and seen evidence for them to be true. I also did the opposite. And looking at the opposite seemed more true objectively and with the emotions and popular biases like authority bias and other harmful ones removed.
"If you can't see anything wrong with the side you agree with, and you can't see anything right with the side you disagree with, you've been manipulated." Very wise quote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noting that it is straw man to connect my argument with vaccine skepticism. The mass psychosis was that early on in the COVID response, we were hearing so much early advice from people that were ahead of CDC/FDA, things like: - Masks work (CDC/FDA discouraged, then flip-flopped and took credit for these things) despite it originating from Scott Alexander and skeptic communities like his, I also heard it from Tim Ferr…
>Masks work (CDC/FDA discouraged, then flip-flopped Discouraging them early on was meant to avoid supply runs on quality masks. I agree it was a misstep on their part to promote the falsehood that masks do not prevent the wearer from being infected, and they never sufficiently walked this back, only perpetuating further myths like masks only protect others and not the wearer. >Asking about "Hey if I got COVID before,…
Check out the Alice in Wonderland persuasive technique? Basically it works off of inducing confusion intentionally and then offering a suggestion that is anchored to as "safe" in the human psychology. Supposedly operating off programming that extends on the falling instinct where we anchor onto anything close by that feels safe (has our early weird monkey brain origins there!).
I think you'll see a lot of the public authoritarian CDC, Govt, mainstream authoritarian response was anchored in this. And it supports the psychosis theory I originally responded off of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noting that it is straw man to connect my argument with vaccine skepticism. The mass psychosis was that early on in the COVID response, we were hearing so much early advice from people that were ahead of CDC/FDA, things like: - Masks work (CDC/FDA discouraged, then flip-flopped and took credit for these things) despite it originating from Scott Alexander and skeptic communities like his, I also heard it from Tim Ferr…
>Masks work (CDC/FDA discouraged, then flip-flopped Discouraging them early on was meant to avoid supply runs on quality masks. I agree it was a misstep on their part to promote the falsehood that masks do not prevent the wearer from being infected, and they never sufficiently walked this back, only perpetuating further myths like masks only protect others and not the wearer. >Asking about "Hey if I got COVID before,…
Oh by the way, I have a funny personal experience with the theory that it was meant to avoid supply runs on quality masks.
Early on I discovered any cloth layers would work good enough, and found and shared many quick 2 minute guides in my network. I heard a lot of the similar bullshit nonsense that was sounding like mass psychosis then too that "building your own mask risks supply runs on quality masks". I'm like how does that make any logical sense though it feels like a hypnotic sort of lockstep programming of not being able to feel the dissonance to ask certain questions.