DarkTree

It matters because some people view code as a human art. Sure, AI can also probably produce a good sounding song, but that doesn't mean I will view it in the same way as a song created by a human.

Claude is not a single tool like a power drill or saw so I don't feel like this analogy fits well. Claude is more similar to the entire workshop and a robot using the tools and then you telling the robot what to build.

So maybe that cabinet wouldn't exist without the human element but I think it's fair for other humans to feel that's not quite the same as building it yourself.

> How much longer is knowing what you're doing going to be a moat?

To me, I don't see how this will ever not be an advantage. All software requires constraints. Some of those constraints might be objective (scale, performance, etc.) but a lot of them are subjective and require active decision making (architecture, UI, readability).

So if there was only one way to do something or only one desired output, then yes I think models would surpass humans. But like art, I don't think there is a objective truth to software and because of that, humans get the opportunity to play an important role.

Now whether that is valued from a business/industry perspective is a question that I think we all know the answer to unfortunately.

Agreed, and unfortunately for the group of us who did realize this and pushed back are seen as luddites and just don't understand how amazing the technology is.

> I genuinely want to invest time in learning Rust, but at the same time, I am terrified that all the effort and time I spend learning it will become obsolete in the future.

I would say ask yourself this: Who would be better positioned to build a Rust application using LLMs, someone who has never learned Rust or someone who knows it well?

$$$

Now do the comments

counterpoint: don't keep doors closed by being dismissive of other peoples' careers/interests like this person

Along with this, the thing that helped me the most was learning to run much slower. I would always run at an uncomfortable pace that would jack my heart rate up and have me huffing and puffing. Then I learned about "Zone 2" training which essentially boils down to running at a pace where you could comfortably have a conversation and more easily run for extended periods. This now only made it so I could run more miles per week, but it turned running from an exhausted effort to a more meditative, enjoyable one.

Things I think have helped me the most: 1. Correctly fitting shoes (I always wore shoes that were too narrow and short for my feet) 2. Wearing a heart rate monitor so that I could run at a pace that allows me to stay within the heart rate range that improves aerobic fitness while being easy enough to sustain (heart rate zone 2) 3. Increasing my cadence to the 170-180 steps per minute range, which has allowed me to improve my form/efficiency and avoid shin splints.

I found this reddit thread regarding running injury prevention and how foam-rolling and stretching may not be as beneficial as might seem interesting [0]. I also enjoy foam-rolling as it tends to alleviate soreness the day after a run/workout, but after seeing this I'm looking more into the evidence behind it.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/nghttt/the_low_han...

I think this parallels really well with the question of how much privacy people are willing to give up for the convenience of digital services. In both cases, it seems like we are increasingly willing to give up privacy and trust in the name of convenience, but I do wonder if there is a breaking point. If there is a breaking point, is it even a system that can be reversed?

> If there isn't a big event downtown, or it's a slow bar/restaurant night, you'll notice there's considerably fewer of them. If the weather is harsh, you'll notice there's considerably fewer of them.

You observe this and the conclusion you make is that, 'many of the 'homeless' people are absolutely not homeless and simply know they can make much easier money off of people coming/going from bars and restaurants.'

or maybe they are homeless and know that their best bet of survival is going to the places with the most people willing to help them out.

or maybe harsh weather means that they aren't capable of being out in the open exposed to the elements, and are instead hunkered down somewhere where they can at least get minimal shelter.

I think the point of the article is that your surface conclusions from simple observations are probably not entirely accurate, and more likely a false assumption made by someone who has never experience homelessness and can't possibly know the motives or circumstances of that population.

I actually find Amazon to be pretty amazing at discovery, but it's dependent on the "Customers who bought this item also bought" section under a book I know I like or am interested in.

I don't go to Amazon books just to start browsing aimlessly, but if I am yearning for a book in the same vein as another book I liked, I'll just search that book and look through the books suggested below. It does keep my discovery narrow, but that consequently keeps my reading wish list small and wieldy.

You left out the next paragraph which is may be one of the reasons it's not used:

> On rare occasions the native S. mutans strain escapes into the blood, potentially causing dangerous heart infections. It is unclear how likely BCS3-L1 is to do the same.

That's a crazy thought. It's also a crazy thought to extrapolate that process all the way to how current first world countries operate. You can kind of start to bridge the gap between the two and see that our society is just an extreme manifestation of that whole scenario you described. We know that in fact there was a direct set of events that got us here, but it's also easy to separate the way humans lived and how we live now, as if they are detached but you can see a lot of those early behaviors still operating in our industrialized society.

For sure, this is a prime example of Goodhart's law in action. Before Amazon came along, I rarely depended on reading reviews before buying a product. Yes, there were definitely sites where reviews helped persuade a purchase, for example Newegg.com, but at that time it wasn't required that I scour a list of reviews before buying a product, it was more of a scavenger hunt around the internet for personal reviews/blogs, or just not at all. Then Amazon came along, and it transformed the way I buy products.

But now, you're right. It has gotten so difficult to trust any review and I often find myself ping-ponging around competing products trying to intuit what reviews are the least fake. Good reviews have simply become a target that don't necessarily signal a good product.

You're super hopeful if you think people don't idolize Patrick Bateman, but they do. People don't see the story, they see a young, good-looking Christian Bale with a powerful suit on walking the streets of NYC with headphones on. People want that image, and the message is lost or separated entirely.

> I don't hate working

You answered your own question right away. Apparently, these people hate working more than they like being less frugal. I've had to be frugal to get by and it does become sort of like a game, where you are always trying to optimize your savings and tradeoffs. However, the stress involved with making these decisions and worrying about money made me appreciate working and making a good income, and I prefer this balance for now.

People post fewer photos, but that shouldn't be confused with having less of an influence on social culture.

Now each post carries much more weight, and therefor is more heavily curated to show that person's perfect life.

It goes further than that though. I know people who wait for a specific hour on Sunday to post their weekly photo because they know that most people check their instagram then and therefor will get them the most likes.

In fact people are going on more adventures and trying more restaurants, which we can argue is a net positive, but it really taints the experience and makes it hard for me to support when so much of the motivation for doing so revolves around taking that perfect picture to share on instagram.

I try not to be a counter-culture cynical critic, but dang.

> I've worked at a couple very high-profile companies in the Valley and have never felt this prestige primarily because I don't hang out with complete douchebags.

> If people get all starry-eyed when you announce the company you work for; run in the opposite direction.

Get over yourself and out of your bubble. American culture constantly pushes the value of prestige and the way of obtaining that being going to good schools and working at popular companies. If you are a person who didn't go to an ivy league or work at Facebook, it's easy to believe that the person who did is better than you in some way. It is more rare to attain that status, so therefor many people both in and outside of the industry look starry-eyed at them.

I don't work at one of the big tech firms and nor do I want to, but I know for a fact most people in my family would think highly of me if I told them I worked at Google, because it is prestigious whether you like it or not. Does that make them douchebags?

> “Wait,” I said, “Listen, it’s music. Your product is music. The reason I know that is because if we went out into the street right now and asked a thousand people what Starbucks’ ‘product’ is, they’d all say coffee. Not a single person would say ‘Starbucks’ product is Starbucks.’ Right?”

I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Sure, people might say coffee, but Starbucks' product is really the whole package. The store design, atmosphere, music, employees, drink names, drink combos.. these were all essential in Starbucks' rise. You aren't just buying coffee at Starbucks, you are buying the experience of Starbucks, therefore, that is the product.

Oh of course, I exactly agree with this, but I think the gap between beginner and Hendrix being filled by deliberate practice is extremely paralyzing for people. I have learned to have confidence in the process. Once you spend years learning a skill and notice that over time you do actually get better because of that persistence, it's kind of a magic realization. Armed with that mindset, you can start learning a skill like guitar knowing that, no, you probably won't be good in a month, but if I stick with it for a few years I'll probably sound pretty decent.

I agree with your last sentence. Furthering that point, I'm inspired to get into something because I've seen someone be really good at it. I would think most people who want to learn guitar do so not because they've never played a guitar, but because they've listened to someone like Jimi Hendrix and immediately want to perform like that.

I thought it was named redux because you can essentially rewind the state

Agreed. When I discovered the world of healthy living, I started reading and applying a lot of nutrition advice to my life. It was natural that I would come across research defending both sides of the coin for certain foods (eggs, for example), but I felt I generally became healthier and more aware of what I put into my body. However, over time I felt I read enough to come to the conclusion that we don't really know much at all and so I don't really read about nutrition research anymore. I tend to stick to simple principles now like eat more vegetables and as little sugar as possible. Beyond that, it seems too nebulous.

Think of it this way, it's not that these scientist think that only water-based forms of life exist, but the universe is very, very large, infinitely so. Since we have finite time to search it, where would you start looking? Would you start searching every single planet/star for some life we may not be able to recognize? Or would you take what we do know - that intelligent life can evolve from water-based planets - and at least start looking there?

One of the comments at the bottom of the post points out what I believe to be a likely scenario:

"As we develop VR tech that allows us to simulate any world we desire, recreational or purpose driven, there is less and less reason to explore the rest of the universe."

Using humanity as a example for how intelligent life advances, we can look at the developed nations. The develop nations are the ones who would create any sort of technology that would get us out of the solar system and into contact with other life. Most, if not all developed nations are built through commercialization of products, with the citizens consuming those products. Only a very, very small portion of people are working on the advanced technology to take us elsewhere. So the majority of our species are not advancing galactic technology, but they are becoming larger consumers of entertainment, at least on the scale since early civilizations. Keeping that in mind, we are also somewhat physically locked in our solar system due to the laws of physics, at least in the near term. So, to me it would seem much more likely that instead of advancing space tech to the point where we are sending robots to other planets to self-replicate and spread across the universe, that by that time we would have already perfected VR and that our entertainment-based population would be well-satisfied simply living in our perfect little VR worlds. The two scenarios aren't mutually-exclusive. We are in fact advancing VR and building rockets for Mars as I write this, but I think it's also possible that simulating our reality could replace our desire to move outward. Since the universe is seemingly too far out of reach, we will just create our own here, for cheaper, sooner.

Agreed, but it does run at 60fps on my 2015 macbook pro running macOS Sierra

I loved this article regarding the algorithm used for capturing pokemon: http://www.dragonflycave.com/mechanics/gen-i-capturing

I actually read Into the Wild when I was younger and that was the quote I was channeling. That quote has resonated with me ever since and reshaped the way I think about relationships and what it means to be happy.