robluxus

> For example, one operator’s price-comparison site listed a package that bought the equivalent of $3,333 worth of official Anthropic credit for 425 RMB — roughly $0.13 of usage per $1 spent.

Do these numbers make sense? $0.13 usage per $1 spent?

Maybe OP just used an ai editor to add their silly comments, so that would be fair game I guess? Or some humans just add silly comments. The article didn't stand out to me as emberrassingly ai-written. Not an em dash in sight :)

Edit: just found this disclaimer in the article:

> I’ll show the generating R code, with a liberal sprinking of comments so it’s hopefully not too inscrutable.

Doesn't come out the gate and say who wrote the comments but ostensibly OP is a new grad / junior, the commenting style is on-brand.

Interesting comment. Why is it common decency to call out how much ai was used for generating an artifact?

Is there a threshold? I assume spell checkers, linters and formatters are fair game. The other extreme is full-on ai slop. Where do we as a society should start to feel the need to police this (better)?

This is the actual essence of CATB, has very little to with your analogy:

-----

> The software essay contrasts two different free software development models:

> The cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers. GNU Emacs and GCC were presented as examples.

> The bazaar model, in which the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as the inventor of this process. Raymond also provides anecdotal accounts of his own implementation of this model for the Fetchmail project

-----

Source: Wikipedia

> I just want to putz around with something in VSCode for a few hours!

I just googled "using claude from vscode" and the first page had a link that brought me to anthropic's step by step guide on how to set this up exactly.

Why care about pricing and product names and UI until it's a problem?

> Someone on HN told me Copilot sucks, use Claude.

I concur, but I'm also just a dude saying some stuff on HN :)

Maybe I just haven't worked at a large enough company yet, but it's fascinating to me how in some organizations a very common sense exercise of "let's have some stakeholders sit down and reason about what everyone wishes to do" could be revolutionary.

> iCloud photo albums have no API. However, if you share an iCloud photo album to a public link [...]

How do folks feel about the security vs. convenience aspect of this? I almost talked myself into doing this for our shared family albums, but I know I really shouldn't do it.

Some of our older family members run Windows and iCloud sharing is just horrible there. Basically, the photos keep disappearing from their computer. It looks like we're not the only one with the issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/iCloud/comments/150nq4i/icloud_wind...

That scenario moves the goalpost towards a losing proposition. You have two important and urgent things and already know you fail at least one of them.

TFA is about non urgent important tasks that you want to show incremental progress on. If there are multiple of those then those short bursts of works actual work can be eaten up by context switching, reprioritization, scheduling, etc.

Do you use a specialized LLM for diagrams?

Yes. They are in the important but not urgent quadrant of the Eisenhower matrix.

This (ie. using the github issues on the repo) is great because it co-locates the mental notes breadcrumbs, the todo list and the project itself.

I use org-mode for personal project management, and by design it intermingles notes and todos. But it never fully clicked until I started putting the notes closer and closer to my repo (my workflow pre-dates github, but this approach makes me consider some modernization :))

This seems to work well for me when I only have a single (highest priority) project for the next couple months. But as soon as I have competing priorities, the context switches (or scheduling overhead) kill all the momentum that I could build up with small increments.

Where do you draw the line though?

Because if you start making more widgets then now your support, marketing, sales acquisition et al costs also have to scale. But that needs foresight... And until the AI workforce comes for those too, it's easier to claim short term victory.

Not who you replied to but I'm in the same boat re: sleepless nights. It's not quite literally that bad but it's distracting for sure. I just can't seem to leave enough breadcrumbs to stop ruminating about the problem after work. Of course working from home doesn't help the situation. But sometimes it feels like I have to leave so many breadcrumbs and capture so much context that I might as well just do the work...

> all the way up to a visual mental concept of it that does everything but actually block your field of vision.

That does sound like it would put an upper bound on what "seeing with your minds eye" means, but then what about this line from GP above:

> daydreaming has a weird effect of completely blocking out my vision.

This was claimed by a person who also self-reports aphantasia, and I (as a person that claims to NOT have aphantasia) just can't imagine (pun intended) how this would work.

Are there tests for aphantasia?

It's fascinating to me that (as far as I'm concerned) we mostly learn about it by self-reporting but then those reports vary pretty wildly.

I myself don't have aphantasia I think but I feel like I really have to work on "drawing things up" when I try to picture something with my eyes closed. Or maybe that's just the normal amount of effort for the complexity and detail I'm trying to capture? Actually it's easier to "imagine" things with my eyes open which I always thought was weird before I read this comment about daydreaming blocking out vision. Which still sounds extreme to me, but maybe not more extreme than all those other reports that claim they can procure fully detailed houses / places / system architectures / electrical diagrams / etc on a whim.

But then those are by definition not UI tests.

In an ideal world one might argue that everything testing-worthy (ie. the logic-heavy parts) is already factored out from the UI components but getting to that point either needs a good amount of foresight and discipline or some a lot of refactoring which is difficult to trust without existing UI tests...

Both Friends and TBBT are popular with (American) English learners.

What would you think makes Suits insufferable to watch?

In what mature organization does it take any less than a week to deploy a new service?

> Many of those jobs simply never came back

What happened to the people? Did new jobs get created?

Obligatory "you don't need Hadoop": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14401399

My main issue with 60% are the lack of arrow keys. I haven't used F-keys for years (I do use the media keys on the F-row every once in a while) but my muscle memory needs dedicated arrow keys.

Not getting harped on is indeed a motivator for a lot of folks. And managers take advantage of this sometimes consciously sometimes unconsciously.

Re: SREs and observability, unfortunately sometimes the power imbalance tips the scale in their favor because if as a service owner you let observability out of your control then guess who will report your SLA to your boss?

Of course every org and every SRE org is different. Except yours. The Anna Karenina principle applies.

This just seems like defending clickbait.

It's abundantly clear the author didn't mean what the title says only after after opening and skimming the article.

Granted, HN's title editorializing didn't help the case. But there's a difference between expecting to preserve the full information of the whole article in a singular title sentence and being annoyed that some title has just enough ambiguity in it that folks will likely click on it.

Are you by chance referring to the 16 Meyers-Briggs types?

It's been claimed that it's less useful than it is popular: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

It's more about flexibility than consistency.

str.join() and bytes.join() can support all iterable type arguments.

Better than trying to implement a join (or two) on all iterables.

There's also https://argdown.org/ -- A simple syntax for complex argumentation

Interesting observation. Do you have some real world DP codebase examples where one can see how they avoid word soup (without sacrificing understandability)?