dogleash

>“I hope we can rekindle the best of the culture we joined,” Bosworth wrote.

Wasn't it a already a notoriously toxic place to work before the reorg?

It's simpler than that, some people just like sardonic writing. I don't know if I believe Ed any more than some AI cheerleader. But his writing is proper relaxing compared to hype rants that I wouldn't blame someone for suspecting to be coke-fueled.

Why would it need to be erudite pinkie up critiqué?

Can't it be 404 throwing a little egg on google's face? Point out their shit smells every once in a while.

Yeah, there's no big revelation here. Just what you would expect the rank and file at a slopshop subjected to the current state of AI think of the slop when they ain't publicly shilling for the home team.

But pointing this all out is fine, especially when there's plenty of other coverage where everyone pretends like obvious open secrets aren't true unless a peer-reviewed meta-analysis proves it. And even then we should still give them the benefit of the doubt because maybe this time it's different.

> Excel users complain about using Excel still

Disliked thing can have positive utility? Must mean the criticism is wrong. gg's in chat and checkmate, atheists.

It's simple. Noise based nuisances from datacenters fall in one of two categories:

A) don't exist, therefore not a concern

B) known to exist, therefore not a concern

As a user I'm kinda whatever about the tools because the answer to my complaints about systemd is also "you're holding it wrong."

As an employer, I want education to be robust from the ground up, not turn uni into an attempt to bootcamp whatever is hot today.

I don't think a 4 year postsecondary education is enough time to make a developer that can hit the ground running. Not if it's 100% of class time on CS theory. Nor if it were 4 years of vocational training and labwork that leaned heavy into AI. Nor some mix. We train on the job heavily, it's just not possible to fit everything into the sausage grinder.

So why not throw in some mandatory non-major electives? Take the time to do stuff that frustrates people who want uni to be a certificate mill. I don't care if green employees are experts at the exact narrow set of tools I use. I want them to be good at learning, and to have gotten most of the standard CS topics out of the way.

>this one slipped through a crack

Oh, whoopsie!

>Twenty years ago my teachers were telling me not to use Wikipedia because you can't trust anything on the internet.

Still can't. "ChatGPT can make mistakes." People still trust it, doesn't mean they should. Wiki's not as bad of a tertiary source as it used to be, but it's still a tertiary source and you had a research assignment. Even official authoritative sources can be un/intentionally wrong.

> You should never date someone you met through an app or website because they are 100% murderers.

This remains sound advice that teachers should continue giving children. Even (or morso) now that online dating has been normalized in the meantime. Do I have to explain?

I don't spend much time interacting with zoomers, but I'm still surprised that "spicy $foo" sends fellow boomers through such a loop. I didn't have to puzzle it out, it was fun juxtaposition wordplay and when it's deployed well I still find it amusing.

I'm ribbing you for writing like a condescending guru that invalidates the evaluatory capability of your peers. Not the meat of your evaluation (not to say that it's any good either, just that it's irrelevant).

>before all the musings about painting by people who have never picked up a brush

I can't tell if this is a clever dig that comically undercuts the premise of the previous line, or it's an unaware unironic attempt to separate off a perceived un-serious type of poster.

> For XXX you always want to go with XXX, not XXX

Oh, hey, I recognize you. Thank you for the very forward and thorough orbital sander recommendation at Home Depot. That's exactly what I wanted to deal with on my holiday weekend. You just know so much about this and the rest of us are simple passersbys.

> This stuff is deeply dystopian and I struggle to believe good faith on the part of people selling this stuff.

I agree, but there's something I also kinda respect about saying the quiet part out loud.

Other AIs are executed just slyly enough for anyone with legitimate criticism to be given a hard time by a specious and silver-tongued communications departments, or a eager outside sycophant. Sure, $HEAD of $AI_VENTURE probably does has a genuine good faith idea or two about AI. They might not always be lying in the press. But the companies still act in dystopian bad faith.

>Languages and ecosystems with low variance in their training corpus are represented better and executed more reliably by coding agents.

Just narrow your window of thought to easier problems for the LLM, and all of a sudden the LLMs do everything you want!

Reminds me of playing around with image generation models. Someone who's been practicing can crank out prompts for really impressive images back to back. But you try to use an everyday object or concept the model isn't trained on? Everybody will race to show off how smart they are by saying "just don't hold it like that."

It's already 19 years old? But it's still so fun seeing the same joke in every thread. Again and again. Any time someone can be even hypothetically accused of underestimating complexity of a sleek replacement for a hack system, or the topic can be tied to file sharing apps. It's a lot of fun to be reminded of that comment again and again from a clever bunch on a website with a good sense of humor.

> I do wonder if people in some industries in the past were ever anxious about these specific things (especially skill attrition).

I've spoken with some people (now in their 60s & 70s) that worried about skill atrophy in their line of work.

First they worried about atrophy. Then they watched skill dry up. Now they know it's not available to buy anywhere. In the better cases the skills still exist, but entirely overseas.

These are people I could recognize as sharp engineers, even if I don't know their domains at all. I had to take them at their word about the value in what was lost. The problem is that it's easy to assume that business (or at least society) would prevent degradation of valuable knowledge over time.

>rocket fuel

Did you write this comment with AI, or can you explain why so many people use the exact same terrible metaphor?

> overly dramatic writing

I feel like everything posted to HN that talks about technology or the business around it while trying to show personality or make arguments from humanity gets this kind of response. Sure each time the reason is tailored, but they all add up to point the vector in one direction. Unless it's bland buisnessminded blandness, it can't be taken serious. Even the cringe coke-fueled rants about tech are received better because they're in the direction of excitement for building future product.

So, you're fanboying?

If we're gonna fight, lets go xbox vs playstation. Javscript runtimes are a snoozefest.

I get it if you're trying to defend your buddy, but at the end of the day it's on software to justify itself to me. Not for me (or parent poster) to justify their refusal.

Once bitten twice shy, y'know. Maybe the first bite wasn't even from bun. If bun can't take this on the chin and come back stronger, maybe bun wasn't a good choice to begin with. I'm sure a future version of bun with a rebuilt reputation will have an easy time getting re-adopted by most projects that needed to play it safe during the transition.

tl;dr: give up, stop trying. just approve the juniors' PR without comment so you have more time to proompt.

> nor have they ever been accused of this

Sure they have. Just look at the accusation in the comment you're replying to.

Doesn't he know you have to be tech-coded to have unhinged takes on the necessity and inevitability of ubiquitous intrusive surveillance and be taken seriously?

> They know more about the reliability of web pages than just about anybody else out there.

Google's little secret about the internet is the same thing Gen X / Millennials were taught for a while but then expected to forget: nothing on the internet can be trusted, bar none. If google can make guesses about relative reliability, that's cute. But it doesn't upend the ground truth.

>So what is he supposed to say?

How to deal with it. Spitting "deal with it" at the audience just says he was so unprepared that he didn't even realize he was literally hired to give them that send-off guidance. But being skilled and notable in a field doesn't make people insightful.

> But if that is the case (and it seems to be), then a coin flip is better than their models.

If a coin flip is the necessary mental model to remind you both things can happen, then sure.

People just love horse race coverage. Silver gave us the most accurate horse race coverage. Maybe the lesson is stop following horse race coverage.

But most people went back to the tea leave readers. That way when the election was over, it can justifiably be the charlatan's fault that viewers got over-invested in their predictive capabilities.

Don't you want to test mythos against state of the art projects? They are the best chance of making visible what mythos uniquely brings to the table.

We already know that mythos will be branded catnip for sub-SOTA projects. They could have build SOTA secure software development practices last week, last month or last year. But didn't care. What will their experience with mythos tell us other than AI hype can create corporate will to take security seriously?

If you can't be arsed to prepare your code for review because it's such a buzzkill to your velocity, why are you even reviewing then? Just push to main.

I'm not being snarky. I put different review standards in place for different repos on my team. Sometimes the standard is no standard. Push to main. Figure it out later.

> If you don't ever have a massive PR from a dynamite session, then you cannot ever be better than "average and plodding".

That's just cope to avoid learning how to turn a big change into a well organized patch series.