cowthulhu

My experience is that Opus can definitely write decent code, but it incurs tech debt and adds unneeded complexity.

I definitely agree that it's not perfect. I think he's a great starting point though, because when trying to get engineers to document stuff (something typically approached with similar enthusiasm to having their teeth removed with a hammer) it really helps if the "how to write a spec" doc is somewhat fun to read.

Unrelated - I really dig your "my [x]th year as a bootstraped founder" series.

It can be subjective, because it's internal to you and not something that gets litigated or whatever. A close call is anything that you personally consider to be a close call.

I'm not asking you to post it here, I'm asking you to think about it and then remember it in the future, should the event ever occur.

I was initially turned on to the idea of using specs by Joel Spolsky [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/10/02/painless-functiona...]

I think they're valuable, both because they get you to think through the actual functionality (and underlying implementation) of the software, and the make sure that you and the [person you're developing for] are roughly on the same page. Plus, every edge case or design issue you catch while writing the spec saves you a ton of time.

That said, I think a big weakness of specs is that it's just not possible to write a perfect spec that doesn't have any blind spots and covers all the edge cases and issues you'll run into when actually developing. This makes it more difficult to hold the customer accountable to the spec, since you (the designer and devs) can't really be accountable to the spec unless you want to deliver some overly literal, not-actually-helpful product.

:\

The bar is high, but there's probably some combination of events (combined with a high confidence in my own lucidity over an extended period of time) that would convince me.

Is there truly nothing an AI system could do (no matter how outlandish it seems today) that would give you pause?

I think I'm coming across as confrontational, which is genuinely not my intention - sorry about that. Not trying to score points or anything, just encourage people to introspect a bit :)

I think your viewpoint is totally valid, and I'm not trying to argue against it.

To avoid shifting goalposts

I'm not asking for justification, just for people to introspect about what, if anything, it would take for them to consider AI a serious threat. No justification needed, and really no need to post it here, just think about it and remember it in the future.

I'm not making an affirmative case - I'm looking for others to introspect about this, and anchor their expectations.

If we have a bioweapon close call, would you consider AI an existential risk at that point? If not, how close would we need to get?

You don't need to answer here, or disclose anything publicly - just think and remember.

Everyone writing off AI-related risk in this thread should think about what would need to happen for them to consider AI a serious existential risk. It can be outlandish and unlikely (close call with a bioweapon? unsupervised persistence in a data center?) but people should honestly call their shots and then stick with them.

I’m sorry your getting so much hate, this is a really cool and unique project.

Based on the profile description of the author, the comment appears to be AI generated.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was surprised at the high voltage required… but resistance loss scales with the square of amperage, so it makes sense that for long distance power transmission, you have to keep amperage low and voltage high.

The third one especially is both (really) cool looking and legible!

I would be really interested to know the cost per card, both at the single card volume as well as the 30 the author ended up getting.

There is something uniquely sad and frustrating in how the victims of this story - the plant workers - were so resistant to the idea of the contamination being dangerous.

Does the uniformity indicate that the files are space-inefficient, and would benefit from compression?

This really shows why most languages evaluate all NULL comparisons to FALSE.

For something as critical as Actions, it’s crazy to me that they wouldn’t fail-closed, and instead fail open when encountering a null. Scary stuff!

I believe it does if you scroll down. Even tells you which way to look to minimize it!

This is the first time I’ve heard someone criticize the “selling cosmetics” business model. I assume you feel the same about R6, TF2 and CSGO, naturally.

Since selling skins is unacceptable, how would you have them make money given the game is F2P?

If I’m understanding correctly, it was already quasi-legal through a loophole, but formally legalizing it made the loophole much trickier to use? That does sound frustrating. I hope they simplify the legal rails… having to wait around in pain waiting for multiple rounds of paperwork to clear sounds terrible.

That’s a really clever idea, I would definitely pay for that in the right circumstances.

Now that I think about it - could you just pour some sort of biodegradable broad-spectrum herbicide down the drain to get the same effect for cheaper?

This article reminds me of Chesterton Fence - the author is complaining about something, without ever experiencing why it exists.

That’s a fair point, but I think the issue is that the other players don’t want to play with you unless you’re running the anti cheat. Some games do have servers with anti cheat disabled, but a few minutes of playing on one of those servers will reveal why self-selecting into a population not running the anti cheat is not very fun.

This is a long winded way of saying that there isn’t a good way to have a multiplayer game give you the choice while still being fun.

Comments like these seem likely to discourage authors from making more interesting posts about niche topics they specialize in, without actually moving the needle on stuff the commenter is pestering about.

IMO, needing to clear out an entire table is an indicator that something has gone wrong with your design.

Don't get me wrong, I've definitely done it before, but it's in the same bucket as VACUUM for me... high impact interventions used to fix a mistake I made, not "course of business" actions.

#3 is insane, if for no other reason than the VC is signaling that he’s likely going to try and do the same thing to you some day… even if you were totally willing to screw over your team, why would you ever get involved with that VC given you’ll then have to watch your back until the end of time?

That actually doesn’t seem that toxic. Doesn’t seem like a carcinogen either. Obviously still bad, but at least we’re not talking about something on the tier of phenol or benzene here!