560 karma · joined February 11, 2015
So I suspect the answer is: they need _at least_ 10x as many engineers to get things done as you would expect. Maybe more like 50x
I would say that GUIs are superior for a few specific use cases, but otherwise sub par. Step through debugging comes to mind as a good GUI use case, but even that I'm not sure if it's because a GUI is inherently better, or making a terminal based debugger is harder and so nobody has made a good one yet.
A lot of posts like this are making it to the front page of HN now that new people are exploring this world for the first time. That's great, the more the merrier, but gets a bit frustrating when a post title is written as if it's discovered some new awesome development tool or methodology, and it's just something people have been doing for years or even decades. This post isn't that big of an offender, but I'm thinking more of stuff like this [0] that it reminded me of.
I should try to be less grumpy about it, but I hope people also try to recognize how often these "new" tools they've been discovering have been routinely used long before LLMs. Maybe I'm just hitting my get-off-my-lawn stage, but it's a bit jarring to come to hacker news and see upvoted posts that are just "look, I can color the diffs in my terminal!". I'm glad this person discovered it, but I thought that was table stakes for the community here.
Did you actually think that lean mass would be a sensible way to separate divisions in a gender neutral fashion? That would, again, just result in women being unable to compete professionally in virtually any sport. They would be relegated to Division N, for some very large value of N. Competing alongside multitudes of biologically male amateurs, where nobody cares and nobody pays to watch. To even entertain this idea betrays a total lack of understanding of the matter at hand.
Right now you are acting like Elon Musk storming into the government and having 20 year olds cut everybody's budget. You may think you're coming in with fresh outsider perspective and an open minded way to look at things and improve them, but everyone actually involved in the domain can see a trainwreck in progress. It's not a good look.
I am quite certain it's not your intention, but you're really coming across as someone who hates women's sports, and doesn't want them to exist. On behalf of my wife and sister and a lot of the women I've known in a lifetime of playing sports - kindly keep your awful ideas to yourself. Women fought tooth and nail for the right to have their own professional sporting opportunities. Don't you dare try to take it away from them.
I won't respond further unless you pick an example sport, and propose how your "scissor for ability" would work, in concrete detail. If you do this, I will be happy to explain why this would result in neither women _nor trans women_ having any chance to make a living as professional athletes.
The concept is just bad, unless your goal is to prevent women from being able to make a living playing professional sports.
I do not consider that to be a good thing.
We are all supposed to be advancing through these levels. Moving at a pace where you actually understand the system you're responsible for is now considered a performance issue. But also, we're "still held responsible for quality".
Needless to say I'm dusting off my resume, but I'm sure plenty of other companies are following the same playbook.
P.S: You should not take this bet. You will lose. You are mistaken if you think you beat stockfish.
I don't believe your last statement because you've been wrong about everything else, and it doesn't make sense. Plugging it in is exactly as easy as literally any electric car, and it simply doesn't have the limitations you claim it does.
I don't know what you've been reading, but you should evaluate the veracity of it as a source and talk to actual owners. I know several others who have one and we're all quite happy with them and don't get gas often
Mine gets a 40-45 mile all electric range. I drive 10-12k miles per year, and ignoring extended multi-day vacation road trips once every couple years, I fill up the tank 2-3 times per year.
I've never bothered to understand the details since none of the private companies I've worked for have had the non-cash portion of their comp be worth anything but $0 before.
Protesters camped out at a central campus thoroughfare, and some protesters tried to stop people from walking through it. Not every protester did this and it wasn't done consistently by those who did, although some people avoided the area entirely just because they didn't want to deal with it. There were certainly other ways to travel from point A to point B on campus, just slightly longer and less convenient ones.
Were people "blocked" from walking through campus? Without disagreeing on any of the above facts, whether people agreed that someone was "blocked" largely came down to who was on each side. So you end up in this annoying semantic argument over what "blocked" means, where people are just using motivated reasoning based on who they want to be the bad actor.
Then you have another layer of disagreement - is it the responsibility of someone walking through campus to make a tiny effort to walk a few minutes out of their way and avoid instigating or escalating? Or do they have every right to walk through a public campus they're a student at, and anyone even slightly getting in their way is in the wrong? This feels closer to a principle people could have a consistent belief about, but again, people's opinions were 100% predictable based on which side of the protest they agreed with
I scrolled past the intro on the website and got to the very first mention of protein, where it is pictured as the foundation of the "new pyramid". The literal very first long form text that appears after that graphic is as follows:
> We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources, paired with healthy fats from whole foods such as eggs, seafood, meats, full-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados.
I'm not about to go count all the mentions and provide an exact answer to your question, because this website appears to be saying things that I already know and have been living by for years; it has no value to me personally. But the initial call to eat more protein specifically says "both animal and plant sources".
We have examples of homogeneous cultures that are high trust, and ones that are low trust.
We have examples of diverse cultures that are low trust, but none that I'm aware of that maintain high trust over time.
The best fitting hypothesis would be that homogeneity is necessary but not in itself sufficient for a high trust culture to be built.
I am 100% certain that conservative men being less likely to seek help is _part_ of the reason why various data shows them as having fewer mental health issues than their liberal counterparts. But I doubt that's the whole picture, and it's also by far the least interesting part of the picture - the cause and effect there is pretty simple and clear.
As another commenter in this thread observes, there's "too much psychology talk in every day life, everyone is traumatised and has unresolved issues etc". I think that's part of it as well, and it's not difficult to believe that this is something that impacts "liberal and left leaning men" more than conservatives, due to sheer exposure if nothing else. I think you do a disservice to the discussion if you dismiss this outright.
I can point directly to the law in whatever jurisdiction you care to name that makes doing what you describe illegal.
You cannot point to anything that makes it illegal to view videos on a publicly accessible website without watching the ads that usually play before them.
Google wants to show me ads. I don't want to see them. I demonstrated this by blocking them. Google continues to show me videos anyway. Clearly they're ok with the arrangement. They are free to present me with written terms, or gate all their videos behind a login, but they choose not to do so.
You are either very confused or playing stupid for some reason that I don't understand, but it isn't amusing or cute. This will probably earn me a dang warning but I don't really care - you are full of shit. You're making claims all over this thread that you've literally just made up.
Poll a random subset of people with the question "are you in favor of free childcare?". X% will say yes.
Poll another set with the question "are you in favor of taxpayer funded childcare?". Y% will say yes.
I would bet any amount of money that X>Y, and (X-Y)% of people did not think about the fact that a free government service is not actually free.
Exactly how big X and Y are, I couldn't say. But identifying propaganda and deceptive language is never something that should be discouraged, even when it's advocating for a cause you agree with.
Skimming that website, whoever is maintaining that is being...very generous with themselves about what they mark as "completed", to put it mildly. For example, "Roll back goal of haze reduction (visible air pollution)" is marked as complete, with the source being an EPA article [1] saying "[the EPA] is reconsidering its implementation of the Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Program", but no indication of what is being reconsidered, or if anything is actually done.
Putting all of that together with the claimed 46% number, I guess you can count me as a fool. But I'm not buying the hysteria here, sorry.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-zeldin-begins...
Show me an AI agent adding a meaningful new feature or fixing a complicated bug in an existing codebase that serves the needs of a decent sized business. Or proposing and implementing a rearchitecture that simplifies such a codebase while maintaining existing behavior. Show me it doing a good job of that, without a prompt from an experienced engineer telling it how to write the code.
These types of tasks are what devs spend their days actually doing, as far as coding is concerned (never mind the non coding work, which is usually the harder part of the job). Current AI agents simply can't do these things in real world scenarios without very heavy hand holding from someone who thoroughly understands the work being done, and is basically using AI as an incredibly fast typing secretary + doc lookup tool.
With that level of hand holding, it does probably speed me up by anywhere from 10% to 50% depending on the task - although in hindsight it also slows me down sometimes. Net hours saved is anywhere from 0 to 10 per week depending on the week, erring more on the lower end of that distribution.
Have you ever worked anywhere that said "go ahead and slow down on delivering product features that drive business value so you can audit the code of your dependencies, that's fine, we'll wait"?
I haven't.
Can you imagine a realistic way around this issue?
To repeat the point you're replying to - a UBI study that examines human behavior from a set of people who are only guaranteed to be given some livable amount of income for a short period, and not for their entire lives, is completely useless. It isn't actually studying UBI. It's studying "what do people do if I give them $20k or so over a few installments?".
Very boring thing to study. Honestly a waste of time and resources to even bother conducting such a study, the results can be put directly in the rubbish bin.
> The food quality is trash, and the prices are so high
If these assumptions are true, it makes sense why you wouldn't understand why McDonalds is relevant / successful.
I do not think these assumptions are true. The food quality is fine - it's somewhere between palatable and mildly tasty for most people. If you use their app, the prices are lower than most other places you could get the same number of calories + protein content.
The food is also very consistent. I've surely gone to at least 20 different McDonalds locations in my life all over the USA, and it tastes pretty much the same every time. I can't say the same for most of their competitors.
So the user "searealist" who you're responding to was correct in saying the comment was written by AI. Are we not supposed to call that out when we notice it? It's difficult because it's typically impossible to prove, and most people won't be as honest as the OP was here.
If what "searealist" did here is not acceptable even though he was right, what are we supposed to do? Flag, downvote?
Personally, I do not want to see any LLM generated content in HN comments, unless it's explicitly identified by the person posting it as a relevant part of some conversation about LLMs themselves.