> Thinking that you're a programmer that doesn't want to constantly build software for your own sake is a delusion - it's like a cook that hopes to turn on the stove only in the restaurant, but won't touch a knife at home.
> Emacs is the cook's home kitchen.
The two sentences are adjacent. I read them as connected. If you meant them to be unrelated, I hope that this sheds light on our disagreement.
"Emacs is a tool, not a religion" yeah that's my point. You framed not investing in it as a delusion. We can all agree on the importance of tooling. I am responding to the tone of the sermon you wrote.
To summarize: your claim is that choosing to spend your energy on anything other than your emacs setup is a catastrophic failure in terms of ROI, a delusion, and a sort of dereliction of identity as a programmer. My rebuttal: dude, relax.
I’m not saying violence didnt happen, of course it did! I’m saying the evidence is not that neanderthals were simply eradicated like animals that were hunted to extinction and that multiple factors led to their gradual decline over time.
Ah yeah looks I wasn't on the mark here. The "outcompete" framing is more accurate for neanderthals but for many pleistocene extinctions "hunted to extinction" did happen in some cases so it was not a good comparison. Thanks!
Great question. When people say outcompete it can certainly include violence but we’re talking about populations spread over continents over thousands of years. Factors like technology, fertility, adaptability, etc. are more what people mean when they said outcompete.
They weren’t shilling at all, it was a passive statement of fact. In fact, they didn’t mention LLMs at all and a kanban board could be built in a weekend without one so it’s not even clear if your comment is on topic
We were talking about covid era trends specifically. Covid peaked around 2020-2022 and it's difficult to determine what other trends during that time period are directly caused by covid, or correlated, or even unrelated. Long term generational trends don't tell us as much about what was or wasn't caused by Covid itself.
COVID is highly correlated with many other things that would increase dangerous behavior. For example, COVID saw an increase in alcohol use, which in turn would result in increases in road rage and traffic fatalities. I think so much was going on at the time that it's hard to decide what is a first degree effect versus a downstream effect, or even unrelated to COVID and more related to, say, political turmoil of the time that was already ongoing.
It's an employee survey so it's not resistant to claims that the number is higher than people know. But I think saying "on all the computers you're given" is an exaggeration at best.
I did think it was interesting that "One in three [employees] have had activity from their employer’s online surveillance used in their performance reviews."
Sounds like if you're being surveilled by your employer there is a good chance you know about it.
I've never experienced anything like that, so it's sort of a window into another world from my perspective.
Personally, I have multiple messaging apps. I have notifications on for work slack, which is high signal, and I have notifications off for personal discord which is noisy and low priority.
This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.
For any tool, you want to measure the productivity gains, not the usage of the tool itself. Are these companies really that bad at measuring the work that gets done? You don't care how many times the hammer was used. You care that the house got built and the time it took to build it at what level of quality.
In practice digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do. In many cases, especially when used liberally, digital effects still clock as amazing digital effects rather than reality. It can be enjoyable but I don’t see what would move forward other than recognizing cgi isnt the best solution for everything.
The code has a stated goal of avoiding leaks, but then the actual implementation becomes broader than that. I see two possible explanations:
* The authors made the code very broad to improve its ability to achieve the stated goal
* The authors have an unstated goal
I think it's healthy to be skeptical but what I'm seeing is that the skeptics are pushing the boundaries of what's actually in the source. For example, you say "says on the tin" that it "pretends to be human" but it simply does not say that on the tin. It does say "Write commit messages as a human developer would" which is not the same thing as "Try to trick people into believing you're human." To convince people of your skepticism, it's best to stick to the facts.
I think this is a false dichotomy. Maybe there is some theoretical developer who cares about their craft only due to platonic idealism, but most developers who care about their craft want their code to be correct, fast, maintainable, usable, etc. in ways that do indeed benefit its users. At worst, misalignment in priorities can come into play, but it's much more subtle than developers either caring or not caring about craft.