MrPatan

Precisely the exact opposite is true.

There are countless software projects that have never seen the light of day because the developers spent all the time polishing the back of the cabinet (and the product managers designing the door handles), and nobody did anything about the actual drawers.

You've seen the survivors of the process which have ugly backs of the cabinets because the developers started on the actual drawers and, because more likely than not it was somebody elses money paying for back-of-the-cabinet-polishing, and they got stopped at the end.

Also, if I have to delay the building of my kitchen because the cabinets are late, and I call the shop and they cheerfully tell me that they were ready yesterday but they haven't finished polishing the backs, oh man, I don't know how happy am I going to be about their excellent craftsmanship, you know?

The actual market's choice is hard to fake. It's people voting with their dollars. Don't like it, don't watch it. Don't care, watch it.

Disney are not the market, and neither are they "the market". They are indeed betting on lots of people not caring about AI one way or another, so that they can save some money. Good for them.

What's the problem with low quality and low effort? Let the market decide if they like it or not.

What's wrong with using generative AI?

He's a (successful) politician. I wouldn't expect him to say that of course he's self-made and his listeners (whose votes he may or may not need) are a bunch of not-self-made losers. That sentence doesn't give me a lot of information about what he actually thinks.

"Processing" is not the issue. Food seeing the inside of a factory is not what will make you sick. It's what gets put in it. It's the sugar.

I'm pretty sure at this point that the word "processed food" was also a stroke of marketing genius by the shit suggary food lobby. Avoids putting front and center what is it that makes the food bad (it's the sugar), and replace it with a generic scary-sounding word that can be applied to everything, so it diffuses responsibility and hides the actual problem ("See, this shit food uses unprocessed brown cane sugar as its addiction additive. Healthy!")

> YAML is good for human readable configuration

Not for me it's not.

I don't find YAML undertandable. I find JSON very understandable.

I think it's another example of the different ways people understand (I don't want to call it "reading") code: "textually" or "visually".

I suspect the same subset of people find lisp, coffescript or yaml readable, with the same drive of removing everything that isn't "words" from the code (useless noise!). The punctuation doesn't let them read the code as a text, I guess? and they only build the structure of the code in their heads after a "linear pass" through the code?

While myself and others like me are very happy with all the punctuation that makes the structure jump out to us at literal first sight. I build the structure first in my head and fill in the "words" later.

I made it sound all neutral-like and all, but it's not, my way is certainly much better. Learn to grok code visually, it's better.

Is "processed" the problem? What's the process that makes you fat and sick? Is it boiling? Stirring? Heating? Freezing?

Or is it the added sugar?

It's the sugar

I can't parse it.

No, it's the syntax. It's bad.

A code smell means you should look into it, not that it's wrong.

Some things are genuinely 2kloc-complex. Maybe not that many. Do check! But some are.

I don't read that title the same way other people read that title

Then no one can pay for college anyway

Yes.

And if the university thinks underwater basket weaving is really important and should definitely be studied, they should fund it themselves, not the taxpayer, to align incentives. "It's important if I don't have to pay for it" gives me some information.

My point exactly

What if it's not about missing perspectives, but exposure to infohazards?

Is it possible to find out how much sugar does a restaurant put in the food?

https://youtu.be/YUeEknfATJ0?t=42

How can you tell? American economy is the biggest in the world and growing, unlike Europe.

Do you claim it'd be even bigger with European style cities?

I can agree on quality of life grounds, but "damage to the US economy" seems like a hard sell.

I can, the moment I realized it's not about any technical problem, about energy or about the environment. It's about sin, penitence, redemption, guilt, shame, lack of self-awareness and too much free time.

There's always been people with those kind of needs and impulses, and they had non-civilization-destroying outlets to safely discharge them. Now we don't. Ah well, it will work out or it won't, one way or another Darwin will collect.

I don't think this applies to bigger apps like an excel or Photoshop. I don't think HN is very "appy", to be honest.

If they can't make anything else, they make noise.

You're playing with words to win an argument when the game is already over.

You want to claim no censorship happened because the TLAs with the monopoly on violence "only asked"? Ok. Cool. Still, after their shenanigans-which-are-for-sure-not-censorship, now fewer people trust science, medicine, government and media.

You claim it was the right decision in order to appease China? There was nothing to collaborate with them on, and if there was they didn't collaborate anyway, so no, I don't think it was the right decision even at the time.

Ok, and what do we do with the apps that are huge because of the reason I think?

Once again, the "write once lots of small websites" people and the "maintain huge web apps" people, will be talking past each other.

We share a base layer in HTML, CSS, JS, but the incentives, requirements, job environments, team sizes, couldn't be more different.

I wonder about other languages and ecosystems. What would be a similar situation for e.g. C? Is there such a thing?

Still can't see it. Once you do components CSS gets much simpler, what's the point of a layer on top?

> I know your opinion is that you'd have accused China right then and there.

You don't know that.

"Don't lie" and "don't censor your own citizens calling you out on your lies" mean exactly what it says in the tin.

I didn't say "call Xi and tell him it's the lab!" I say don't force trusted institutions to lie for you, and if somebody posts a dissenting opinion on Facebook, you let them, or deal with the consequences (lack of trust in institutions for a few generations).

> nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions.

And yet I did, and so did millions more. Now what? You think we're irrational? Ok, that doesn't fix it.

That is what "destroying trust" means.

Besides, that's not even accurate. Of course every time I get lied to by a scientist I should update a bit more towards believing scientists less. That's not only common sense, it's Bayesian rationality by the book.

Why is lying and censoring dissenting views a bad way to sell something? Because it destroys all trust we have in that institution, and now every time they try to push something again we have to wonder "What lies and censorship are they doing this time?"

> You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what?

The most obvious one, which you already admitted to in your original post, is the lab leak theory. They knew it was a very likely possibility, and lied. And dissenting opinions were labelled conspiracies, censored, deboosted, demonetized, the usual.

The masks are the funniest one, because it's double dumb. When they thought they worked, they told us they didn't work, and after we knew they don't do much they still mandated masks.

Or how about ivermectin being called a "horse dewormer" so that people didn't use it? If you think that's not lying or censoring because it can indeed be used to treat horses, I don't know what else to tell you.

As for policy that failed, how about the lockdowns? You may argue that it's because they didn't go far enough, like in China or New Zealand (where they also failed, as excess deaths are through the roof anyway) but it would still make it a failed policy, failure of implementation is still failure.

I'm not going to give you any sources, you can Google them on the spot as well as I can, and it seems like you need an out here.