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

I'm OK being left behind, thanks

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 800 posts

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#641

Post by anticorporate »

0x3f wrote: post #558
anticorporate wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew this canned rebuttal was coming and almost addressed it in my previous comment. I've not found this to be true at all, for a variety of reasons. One of my moral principles that extreme wealth accumulation by any individual is ultimately harmful to society, even for those who start with altruistic values. Money is power, and power corrupts. Also, the further from my immediate circle I focus my impact on, the le…

But you're not supposed to accumulate the wealth, you're supposed to forward it to your elected causes.

Being a quant is inherently accumulating and growing someone's wealth for them, even if it's not your own.

If there were a way to be a true Robin Hood and only extract wealth from the wealthy and redistribute that to poor, I'd call that a noble cause, although finance is not my field (nor is crime, for that matter) so it's not for me.

My chosen wealth multiplier is working at a community-owned cooperative, building the wealth for others directly.

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#642

Post by mkl »

notlenin wrote: post #631
nightski wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They measured 16 developers and called it a "study"? That is amusing. Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago, the tools have already changed dramatically.

> Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago false. The article is from 4th of March 2026, less than a month ago.

From the first sentence of the article proper: "A study published in July 2025".

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#643

Post by 0x3f »

anticorporate wrote: post #641
0x3f wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're not supposed to accumulate the wealth, you're supposed to forward it to your elected causes.

Being a quant is inherently accumulating and growing someone's wealth for them, even if it's not your own. If there were a way to be a true Robin Hood and only extract wealth from the wealthy and redistribute that to poor, I'd call that a noble cause, although finance is not my field (nor is crime, for that matter) so it's not for me. My chosen wealth multiplier is working at a community-owned cooperative, building t…

Not sure about this because many charities are designed to spend their income, rather than hoard it. A big part of choosing which charity to donate to is, or should be, how effective they are in spending what you give them.

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#644

Post by irishcule »

xigoi wrote: post #594
HDThoreaun wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you write a library the first step is always designing it. LLMs dont get rid of that step, they get rid of the next step where you implement your design.

They also added an additional step where you have to explain your design using vague natural language.

Is this really "additional"? do you not do design docs/adrs/rfcs etc and talk about them with your team? do you take any notes or write out your design/plan in some way even for yourself?

Why can't you just pass any of those to an AI?

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#645

Post by roarcher »

jmalicki wrote: post #579
tehjoker wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just run a new study this year. I do think the tools have improved, but it should show up empirically. The only people for whom the urgency of "right now" is present is for the C-suite and investor class who are fighting to make sure they survive, but it might also be a crisis of their own making. Don't confuse your identity as a worker with the identity of the capitalist class.

You should be able to just develop software on your cellphone, right? Do you have an empirical study to support that your employer should buy you a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help your productivity? If there's no study, why should we believe it? It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sh…

> It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft."

Are you under the impression that we don't bother to empirically prove things that seem obvious, like the safety benefits of parachutes? You don't think parachute manufacturers test their designs and quantify their performance?

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#646

Post by pedalpete »

Some people are comfortable living on the edge, but it isn't for most.

I was developing in the metaverse space, and the problems we were facing led me to learn about the state of AI image generation (2018), and where the world was headed.

People assume the thing you are focused on is the thing that must win in the end, but that just means you are too focused on your little part of the world to take in the bigger picture of what's out there.

Prior to working in the metaverse (really a form of volumetric video, but I won't go into details), I was working in telehealth (2014). I did some research in augmented reality (2009), and lots of other areas of interest as well.

Some people would say I wasted my time on these, but there was a mass of secondary learnings which I value every day.

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#647

Post by jmalicki »

roarcher wrote: post #645
jmalicki wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be able to just develop software on your cellphone, right? Do you have an empirical study to support that your employer should buy you a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help your productivity? If there's no study, why should we believe it? It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sh…

> It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." Are you under the impression that we don't bother to empirically prove things that seem obvious, like the safety benefits of parachutes? You don't think parachute manufacturers test their designs and quantify their performance?

There are no randomized controlled trials that parachutes save lives.

This is repeatedly used as an example in the medical community about the limits of randomized controlled trials. This isn't some impression - your impression that such evidence exists is wrong.

There might be some parachute company tests about effective of velocity, etc., but there are no human trials.

Why? Because that would be unethical.

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#648

Post by jmalicki »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #635
jmalicki wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be able to just develop software on your cellphone, right? Do you have an empirical study to support that your employer should buy you a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help your productivity? If there's no study, why should we believe it? It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sh…

I think my employer should buy me a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help my productivity because I subjectively feel they'd be helpful, and I have the market power to insist on tools that I subjectively feel are helpful. If my CEO announced that monitors are super important and everyone will be tracked on monitor space usage going forwards, I would still want to see evidence that this is going to accomplish s…

Your CEO likewise subjectively feels all of their employees using AI will be helpful, and has the market power to insist that their employees use them.

When engineers demand evidence that AI is productive, but not that having laptops and monitors are productive, it screams confirmation bias. "I'm right, you're wrong" as a default prior.

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#649

Post by xigoi »

irishcule wrote: post #644
xigoi wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also added an additional step where you have to explain your design using vague natural language.

Is this really "additional"? do you not do design docs/adrs/rfcs etc and talk about them with your team? do you take any notes or write out your design/plan in some way even for yourself? Why can't you just pass any of those to an AI?

I’m not part of any team, I work on my projects alone. I rarely write long-form design documents; usually I either just start coding or write very vague notes that only make sense when combined with what’s in my head.

Re: I'm OK being left behind, thanks

#650

Post by roarcher »

jmalicki wrote: post #647
roarcher wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft." Are you under the impression that we don't bother to empirically prove things that seem obvious, like the safety benefits of parachutes? You don't think parachute manufacturers test their designs and quantify their performance?

There are no randomized controlled trials that parachutes save lives. This is repeatedly used as an example in the medical community about the limits of randomized controlled trials. This isn't some impression - your impression that such evidence exists is wrong. There might be some parachute company tests about effective of velocity, etc., but there are no human trials. Why? Because that would be unethical.

> There are no randomized controlled trials that parachutes save lives.

It's a good thing "randomized controlled trials" aren't the only kind of empirical evidence, then.

We know the limits of how fast a human can safely land. Parachute manufactures have to prove that their designs meet the minimum performance specifications to achieve a safe speed. This proof is not invalidated by the fact that it doesn't include throwing some poor bastard with a placebo parachute out of an airplane to demonstrate that he dies on impact.

Also, the answer to your original question is yes. There are numerous studies showing that multiple monitors improve productivity.

Post reply on HN