habinero

That's not a conspiracy theory, that's intended behavior.

You want your reports to feel safe to tell you things, you (or they) can always shift to written later.

> As far as negative feedback - yes, but isn't that what quarterly/bi-yearly/yearly reviews are for?

Absolutely not, no. The opposite of that. You never want to hear negative feedback for the first time at an annual review.

You don't want to be giving negative feedback every week, sure, but you do want to give feedback as close to the behavior as possible. Otherwise, you're just letting someone fuck up for months when they could be learning

Yeah, that's what I thought lol

Bet. Link it lol.

Oh really? Link them.

Ah, of course. The classic trust me bro.

Waymo heavily relies on real humans to get their robots unstuck. They also rely on extremely detailed mapping data, which is why they're only in a few cities.

Tesla has been a couple years away from FSD for, what, like ten years now?

If you scrape off the glitter, you'll find a lot more duct tape and wire than you think.

Nah. There are for-real consequences to that sort of thing and it's so not worth it.

Early stage startups, maybe, but most of those are three failsons in a trenchcoat. That sort generate more PR than revenue.

> Then the rules should enumerate all the ways

It's nice to want things, but rules are much squishier in real life. There's rarely any truly bright line.

Yeah, but the idiots had to put in effort before, which was difficult for them for obvious reasons.

Now they have a cheerful idiot robot who can actually do the idiot things they dream up and it tells them how brilliant they are.

No, Duo as in Cisco Duo IAM.

It was a "please do not fuck around with a central pillar of our security infrastructure just because you can" thing lol.

Kind of, but not really. Those things are hard when you're learning, but they're pretty trivial after some experience.

I almost always have a pretty good idea of what I'm making and how I'm going to make it before I start.

If people just wanted to make their own stuff and have fun, that's fine. Knock yourself out.

However, it's launched this enormous tidal wave of mediocrity that emboldens the dumbest people to do the dumbest shit and make it my problem. I just had to yell at one of the IT guys for trying to hook up our Duo to Claude, and I'm still mad about it lol.

> As a maintainer of a project you should be able to tell if something is slop.

Of course they can, the problem is they have to spend time digging through a ton of garbage looking for the ones that aren't low quality slop.

If you're getting DDOSed, you start by putting up a firewall lol.

Because you're not just dicking around for funsies? It's fine if nobody uses your shit, but it's not fine if you have actual customers who depend on you.

Maybe this is a paid feature that we're going to charge money for. Or we're going after a new market segment, or trying to take business from a rival. A new feature might have regulatory or legal requirements, somebody needs to understand all that.

At the very least, someone wants this new thing for a reason. You can't just guess, you actually have to talk to people and understand the problem domain lol.

How does that help? People gladly post slop PRs under their real names.

That doesn't solve the volume or quality problem. LLMs can split one giant PR into 50 smaller PRs just as easily and "well-documented" isn't something you can determine automatically.

Why is it so hard to just accept that AI PRs suck and create an enormous amount of toil?

No? You do that to make sure everyone understands and agrees on what to build.

Writing code is the easy part. Figuring out what your new feature or product should do is the hard part.

> Another possibility is to release the source code when the game reaches its end of life.

You might not have permission to, if it uses a lot of third party libraries.

Yeah, VSCode will rename functions and vars perfectly, using the language semantics. It'll handle changing imports in python if you change file names.

Like you said, it's basically instant.

Yeah, I would absolutely classify that as "questionable taste" lol.

> I am all for helping the worse off. However, one of the most repulsive ideas is that you can cripple everyone else, because some people have less.

Bruh. It's easy to prattle on about "objective improvement" and "slave morality" and pretend everything's a zero sum game where funding is fixed and we can do nothing to change the system. Neither is true. This is just an excuse to absolve yourself of doing any of the hard work to improve things.

> The focus should be on making things better, not bizarre idealistic notions like "equality" or "equity"

Man, does anyone else hear that high pitched sound? Just me? Huh.

Poor people care about their kids, too. They're just struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their plates instead of worrying about what college their kids are going to get into.

> If the charter schools are not producing students that perform well academically, then they do not get paid

Some people have never heard of Goodhart's law and it shows lol. It leads to terrible ideas like this which make the same mistake again and again.

I want you to think -- really think -- about the ambiguities in "perform well academically". How do you measure this? Test scores? Grades? If it's grades, then you've just given everyone at that school an incentive to never fail anyone, no matter what. If it's test scores, we already know that leads to teaching to the test, which hurts academics in general. It massively incentivizes cheating and fraud. It incentivizes kicking out any student who has any problems whatsoever.

For every complex problem there is an solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.

I bought one last year and I love it, it really is a well designed and lovely system to use. Here's hoping the price hike doesn't kill it.

What? Those things were absolutely not criticized in the same way. Most of the time they weren't criticized at all lol.

The problem isn't about it being "easier", it's about people who want the praise and attention of being a maker but don't want to put any thought or effort into it. They have no thoughts and nothing to say and what they generate reflects that.

> people that I used to see idly sit at a screen and ingest things all day purely are creating things they like now and sharing them

Like what? People say this kind of stuff all the time and it's either not true or they're generating things with very questionable taste.

Nobody picks Oracle.

In a worker? ...How? I seriously want to know.

Overengineering is totally a thing, yes. If you want to make a proof of concept or you have no customers, that's fine, ship it.

There's such a thing as under engineering, and if you find yourself changing "all the layers" for a feature, your codebase is poorly designed.