awesome_dude

I don't know about the author, but I recently saw an article where the author of Claude code apparently spins up multiple instances at once (note that it could have just been a marketing ploy to get people to use more tokens)

https://www.xda-developers.com/set-up-claude-code-like-boris...

With respect - copyright's protection of income is the point

That's, by design, the tool used to encourage people to invest their time into producing works.

We would not be having this conversation at all if people weren't able to make money of these works - there'd be no point to copyright at all if there wasn't money to be made (by the artists) and the reproduction of their works wasn't restricting their ability to generate that income (for themselves, or their agents).

I want to emphasise that I am not arguing in favour of the system, only how and why it works this way.

Disney are able to pay that amount because their IP is still generating massive income.

I'm not a fan of Disney at all, just pointing out what i belive might be the flaw in the argument.

Ask every account that has ever released information on drug use, lock picking, explosives manufacture, or "hacking" - they all say "for educational purposes only" for a damned good reason

> Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies.

Because the law applies - by that I mean if you don't put a disclaimer in then the law takes the view that you do provide a warranty, etc.

This is one of my pain points, and one time I googled and got the real answer (which is why it's such a pain point).

That answer is "It depends on the context"

> The reason the "ours" and "theirs" notions get swapped around during rebase is that rebase works by doing a series of cherry-picks, into an anonymous branch (detached HEAD mode). The target branch is the anonymous branch, and the merge-from branch is your original (pre-rebase) branch: so "--ours" means the anonymous one rebase is building while "--theirs" means "our branch being rebased".[0]

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25576415/what-is-the-pre...

I think that they were honest about that to a degree, they pointed out that one source of the speed up was caused by the python fixing a big they hadn't noticed in the C++

Edit: fixed phone typos

The whole point of the scientific method was that we could ignore the source of the information, and were instead expected to focus on the value of the information based on supporting evidence (data).

If we go back to "Only people that have been inducted into the community can publish science" we're effectively saying that only the high priests can accrue knowledge.

I say this knowing full well that we have a massive problem in science on sorting the wheat from the chaff, have had so for a VERY long time, and AI is flooding the zone (thank you political commentator I despise) with absolute dross.

I mean, a personal yacht can sail around the world, that's not really demonstrating whether the vessel is useful in combat operations anywhere in the world.

Uhhh surfaced?

I think that there might be a distinction on indie vs big publishers (like EA) - I would expect someone like EA to enforce coding standards, but they do so whilst living off the income of previous hits.

We can probably add to that the fact that the nominated titles almost certainly started out with spaghetti code that had to be refactored, reworked, and gave maintainers nightmares in their sleep

> because having ideas is not the hard part.

I agree. It's the "buy in" from the market.

The biggest names in Software Products have (other peoples) ideas to sell, they're selling the buggy versions of those ideas - Microsoft, Salesforce, even early Facebook, these weren't triumphs of 'monk-like discipline' in the code. They were triumphs of market buy in and timing.

I received some 'interesting' feedback when I spoke about commenting that I was using an O(n) search instead of an O(log n) algorithm because of the normally small size of n [0]

What I should have done was point to Rob's third rule (either in my comment or in the resulting threads)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=awesome_dude&next=47...

Yeah - A game is (generally) a one and done enterprise. Like a start up it's all about getting it out the door, there's little to no expectation of having to maintain it for any real length of time.

The problem with that is - AI isn't a developer.

By that I mean, it's fabulous for taking the input I give it, processing it, and returning a collection of tokens that it has found in its training data that do what is being asked.

It's regurgitating fragments of prior work - I have zero complaint about that, just as a developer you now need to understand what those fragments combined do, and whether that really fits with your actual desire - or not.

To put it into old people's terms "You got the answer from Stack Overflow? Was that the code from one of the answers.... or the question?"

For a Western context, perhaps "tickets to a highly sought after event"

> the problem is when people who are in a position of power and responsibility abuse their power for personal ends

Is that not the definition of corruption?

One thing that I want to add - Westerners have experience of this sort of corruption, every day.

Not at a governmental level, and not powered by cash, but it is seen when working for companies.

Managers are highly corruptible - it's got next to nothing to do with the output of a given worker, instead it's about their ability to "kiss up" (something framed as "soft skills")

Interesting piece - reading it I found myself skimming, the point being made was being made repeatedly, albeit showing that as the author grew as a developer so did the complexity of the software they were using.

There was one thing that screamed in my head, though, whilst reading it, was, yes we can have a look at the library being used, read the code, and understand what its actually doing (this is one of the reasons I like Go so much, no matter who the upstream author is it's generally clear what they're doing [caveat: there are always going to be authors that obfuscate the f*ck out of code, no matter the language], the one thing, though, is systems like Netflix, hundreds of microservices running together in ways that people have NFI what it's all doing.

It just doesn't fit into one person's head anymore.

So, a single head can manage the data pathways for some subset of the system overall, and they might even get right down to the metal, the sheer size of the system means they only have a partial view, and abstractions (in the form of C4 diagrams) only show how complex the beast has become.

I have been using different models for the same role - asking (say) Gemini, then, if I don't like the answer asking Claude, then telling each LLM what the other one said to see where it all ends up

Well I was until the session limit for a week kicked in.

> the judge will decide on the balance of evidence whether you appear to be telling the truth

Hmm, not sure if that's adequate, civil court is usually balance, and that's because it doesn't deprive someone of their liberty. Criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt, because of the seriousness of the consequences

I literally said that I personally had done so; so the only ad hominem is coming from you.

I also asked if you had done it yourself, because, as I also said, from personal experience, it's a LOT easier said than done.

Edit: fixed subject as I hadn't realised the person accusing me of making an ad hominem was the person I had originally replied to.

> it's hard to believe you're not trolling.

Look at the account's comment history - I've had the misfortune of interacting with them, and they're not replying in good faith at all (IMO)

If there's a way for someone (with moderation powers) to look at the account to see if it is ever doing anything but trolling that would be good.

> I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want.

It is if you don't have the item(s) or knowledge being asked for.

People discuss policies all the time, and take inspiration from jurisdictions where those policies /appear/ to be implemented and "working"

The idea that there is an age requirement (for certain content) has been around for a very long time (Facebook, for example has a no under 13s rule in their T&Cs, many porn sites have a 18 years or older declaration before allowing access, and so on)

Australia has recently implemented law(s) that take the next step forward, and the other countries in the world that have been wanting something similar are seeing that, seeing that there haven't blowback from corporations or voters that makes the idea of the law unpalatable, and thinking that they too can implement laws that work in similar ways.

If you actually pay attention to global politics you will see that this sort of behaviour occurs fairly regularly (look, for example, and the legalisationg of homosexual marriage, there was a law legalising it in the Netherlands in 2001, then Belgium did similar in 2003... and so on as more countries saw that their own voters were amenable to the idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_same-sex_marri...)

edit: There's no grand conspiracy at play

Another example is the cannabis use laws, cannabis was heavily criminalised in the 70s, there was pressure from the USA for other countries to follow suit.

BUT from the early 2010s several states of the USA legalised recreational use - this has also bought the debate back to the fore for many countries, with reassessments and changes occuring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j...

Speaking as someone that has spent a large amount of time unemployed because I have a moral compass - let me know when you actually walk that talk.

For me I could only do it because I had "f*ck you" money gained through investments, other people are able to do it because of welfare systems, or even through friends and family.

At the risk of drawing moderation ire..

When does Elon work?

>> If you are wealthy

Then.. you wouldn't be working...

I saw the other day people complaining about AI slop being posted on this site by new accounts - which I agree is bad.

Someone suggested that people with 10k karma and/or 10 years subscription to this site should be able to do things (such as auto-ban) to those accounts.

The account that misrepresented your comment and thus acted in bad faith is one of those 10k+ accounts.

To me, this is a data point showing the fallacy of long term subscription and/or karma accrual as evidence of their quality/good faith abilities