i_am_toaster

I really like your wording and simplicity of response; I might abstract and repurpose it for my own use.

A college degree is a financial decision that has a benefit which should outweigh its cost. If it does not outweigh its cost (both in time and money spent), then you should be doing something else. All college degrees are not equal, whether or not they cost the same. Their cost being the same is the only reason you think these degrees have some level of equality; it seems hypocritical to judge others for their analysis of things based on dollar value when you ascribe value based on price.

I guess I don’t often touch metaclass either, although after reading this article it gave me some ideas on how I might better implement object validation patterns. That being said, I also have recently become acquainted with pydantic, which does take care of some of that.

I’m surprised to hear your opinion on this. I have around 12 years of python experience and I find metaprogramming to be, by far, the most important part of Python. Without the extensive ability to rewrite underlying functionality in a way that was approachable to both novice and adept users, I don’t think we’d have seen a widespread adoption of the language to begin with.

I agree on this front in regards to language being a poor interface for technical tasks. NLP has some extremely useful applications, but language is inherently lossy and abstract. We use the same words to describe different things in different contexts, and it’s common to incorrectly use words in contexts we are unfamiliar with. I don’t think this is a solvable problem in a general domain. Given a more specific domain, I think it can become more accurate, but domain level understanding from the user is required to interface with the model and the scope of its utility will be dependent on how it is applied. Personally I don’t think this 1-1 interface to do a thing is an appropriate design for those situations, although perhaps IDEs will begin to use some NLP to learn when to recommend certain types of refactoring tools, sort of like linters for design choices.

I’d argue this product has no target audience.

I look forward to seeing the progress made on this in the future, but at this time I don’t see any potential in this product.

This is why I don’t like developing on Windows, everything has 10 layers of complexity. To write a script for something that should be a simple task, I need to either reengineer the exact environment settings used in the UI or write an additional script to find the correct executable (with all the overhead of running the executable) to recreate the state needed to run a single command.

HN posters don’t unanimously agree on loving or hating anything. Stop trying to stir up drama.

“Coping with google… students can just search for the answers by typing in ‘depth first search code python’. Buckle up and hunker down for one slippery slope of an article!”

I love piracy. Thankfully, it’s existence doesn’t depend on whether you like it or not.

Bingo. This is also a fair comparison to how todays politics works in a nutshell. Overload a word with a vague context and people immediately attribute their own perspective to come to a conclusion that conflicts with an opposing argument.

Relating back to this headline, using “understanding” creates lots of messages with differing views because everyone has their own take on the word. If instead you said something like, “DALLE fakes understanding of concepts to create new images,” I bet you’d get even closer to the “political message board” style of comments because you are now taking an objective position (yes/no,true/false,good/bad) on a subjective word (understanding).

So let me make sure we are clear on your position on this — you think 150k per prisoner sounds like a reasonable number? To me that number seems to be about a magnitude of order wrong. I bet you could do some back of the napkin math, multiply that number by 5, and it would still be way under that number.

To me, when I see 150k, I don’t see a cost — I see a facade.