svieira

`s/reactionary//` and you'd be right in your second sentence. It doesn't matter if it's action or reaction, people with strong beliefs, strongly held tend to be holding them because of some core set of ethical or moral principles and those things eventually are revealed in the day-to-day work.

As to your first - if people with a strong set of ethical and moral principles "just shut up" about what they considered ethical and moral essentials ... then they wouldn't be who they are. The only people who don't show what they hold good are people who don't hold as good much of anything.

Now if we're just talking "opinions" here (about things that are not ethical and moral, merely matters of taste), then yes, a person with "strong beliefs strongly held as a universal principle" is someone who is just an ass. But if I know someone is a raving Detroit Lions fan "on the internet", what kind of a person am I if I can't work with them?

Why wouldn't "I have taken a dislike to them. Pray I do not take a dislike to you as well" also solve these people's problems? There's surely something more than "dislike of conflict" here, or else they wouldn't invite conflict by disagreeing with the now decided and closed conflict's resolution.

Yeah, LLM-created commit messages verge on "Brilliant Paula" for some reason. It's probably because nobody bothers to RLHF commit messages (yet).

https://thedailywtf.com/articles/the_brillant_paula_bean

Quite a bit - I get ads for septic tanks because I have looked at them several times and tank companies continue to advertise for me because I might buy. I get ads for robot mowers because, again, I looked at them. I still see "the bottom of the barrel" ads occasionally, but it's very rare. Ad blitzes on the other hand ... (no, I don't want to build an app just-by-thinking-about-it) ...

"This is a clever usage of the too—little—used plus operator to perform high performance addition"

"Another voice on the subject at hand" is definitely available - but simply searching "{Christian, Catholic} {[SUBJECT MATTER], [KIND OF MATERIAL]" will often unearth some good starting points. E. g. "Christian social periodical" will eventually lead you to https://firstthings.com/ (as an example).

Some suggestions for a variety of subjects:

* Fr. Stanley Jaki on Physics and the philosophy of science - I am working through https://www.abebooks.com/9780895267498/God-Cosmologists-Jaki...

* Philosophy in general, Peter Kreeft (I recommend "Jesus Shock", it's amazing how "used" to Christ we've become, and this book does a good job of pointing out just how different the reactions to him are) and Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue) are both good "recent" authors.

* Bioethics and philosophy https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Bioethics-Limits-Scie... (I will freely admit to bias here, but this is easy to read, clear, and to the point)

* Particularly interesting in the moment: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-limits-...

It is! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7061913

I wonder if this will wind up being a category of problems and the solution is a separate "system" set of effects (effectively `({user}, {system})`) or if this one-off extension is all that will be needed.

Either way, extremely well explained both in motivate and implementation!

> What makes this vast private data uniquely valuable is its quality and real-world grounding.

This is a bold assumption. After Enron (financial transactions), Lehman Brothers (customer/population databases, financial transactions), Theranos (electronic health records), Nikola (proprietary research data), Juicero (I don't even know what this is), WeWork (umm ... everything), FTX (everything and we know they didn't mind lying to themselves) I'm pretty sure we can all say for certain that "real world grounding" isn't a guarantee with regards to anything where money or ego is involved.

Not to mention that at this point we're actively dealing with processes being run (improperly) by AI (see the lawsuits against Cigna and and United Health Care [1]), leading to self-training loops without revealing the "self" aspect of it.

[1]: https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/health-care-counsel-blog...

I think what the OP is asking for is an article _like this one_ about where you go in-depth into what you tried, where the system went, and more specifically what went wrong (even if it's just a list of "undifferentiated issues"). Because "we tried a thing. It didn't work. We bailed out." doesn't show off the rough edges of the tool in a way that helps people understand "the shape of the elephant".

Or, in the vein of https://adamdrake.com/command-line-tools-can-be-235x-faster-... - "here's a place I wouldn't use an AI tool because _other thing_ is far better"

> the number one concern "what happens if we end up owning this codebase but ... don't know how to steer a model on how to make progress"

> Research lets you get up to speed quickly on flows and functionality

This is the _je ne sais quoi_ that people who are comfortable with AI have made peace with and those who are not have not. If you don't know what the code base does or how to make progress you are effectively trusting the system that built the thing you don't understand to understand the thing and teach you. And then from that understanding you're going to direct the teacher to make changes to the system it taught you to understand. Which suggests a certain _je ne sais quoi_ about human intelligence that isn't present in the system, but which would be necessary to create an understanding of the thing under consideration. Which leads to your understanding being questionable because it was sourced from something that _lacks_ that _je ne sais quoi_. But the order time of failure here is "lifetimes". Of features, of codebases, of persons.

This is actually where the "myth" of the 10x engineer comes from - there do exist such people and they always could do more than the rest of us ... because they knew what to build. It's not 10K lines of code, it's _the right_ 10K lines of code. Whether using LLMs or LLVM to produce bytes the bytes produced are not the "τέχνη".

That said, I don't think it takes MORE τέχνη to use the machine, merely a distinct ἐμπειρία. That said, both ἐμπειρία and τέχνη aren't σοφία.

I do not think you are shilling anything at all - merely that you are biased and that bias is somewhat driven by a source of income that you link to your hacker news identity. If you were a Forth hacker with a Forth consultancy, the same thing would apply.

That said, I did not intend to call out your bias as a means of questioning your honesty and I apologize if my communication came across as doing so!

Yes, it is an easy sell. But when that happens this sentence will also be viable - "We can remove the need for your company, valued at multiple millions a month" ... because after all, PMs and CEOs aren't harder to replace than programmers at that point.

> I don't even have products for sale right now

The link in your bio is a long series of tools for various personas with a "schedule a consultation" link next to each one. I'm not sure what "consultation" is if not "a product". But maybe they're all free?

Just a side note - reading https://tanstack.com/db/latest/docs/guides/live-queries#reus... I see:

    const isHighValueCustomer = (row: { user: User; order: Order }) => 
     row.user.active && row.order.amount > 1000

But if I'm understanding the docs correctly on this point, doesn't this have to be:

    const isHighValueCustomer = (row: { user: User; order: Order }) => 
      and(row.user.active, gt(row.order.amount, 1000))

But you might want to compose various methods on the server in order to filter, just like you might want to compose various methods on the server in order to transform. Why is `collection.map(server.lookupByInternalizedId)` a special case that doesn't require `server.lookupCollectionByInternalizedId(collection)`, but `collection.filter(server.isOperationSensibleForATuesday)` is a bridge too far and for that you need `server.areOperationsSensibleForATuesday(collection)`?

Doesn't this apply for _all_ the combinators on `Array.prototype` though? Why special-case `.map` only?

Magna Carta (1200s) was issued 300 years before England defected from Catholicism (1500s), so I think we may be looking at the wrong thing as "the cause" here.

Aren't hooks just composable effects implemented in userland? In fact, Sebastian actually asked the ECMAScript committee for effects a la OCaml 5.0 effects (https://ocaml.org/manual/5.0/effects.html) and React only built their own when the committee said "not right now", if I remember correctly.

The thing is ... you can model effects with the Free monad (or with Haskell's Backpack as was on here just the other day - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45221112), so they are definitely "functional", for most variations on the definition of "functional" that I know.

Strings _are_ bytes under the hood - this is the kind of "well, technically it's not wrong" that makes "ask an LLM" nothing like "Ask Linus" or even "Ask the intern".

> we need more fiction examples of positive AI superintelligence

There are some _very_ interesting examples in John C. Wright's Count to the Eschaton sequence.

https://anycrap.shop/product/self-juicing-lemon - what's worrying is this sounds a lot like Juicero, just a few decades into the future.

https://anycrap.shop/product/heated-tires - there's definitely a market, but I'm concerned about the usage patterns described.

A quick pass through this repository validates that there is a lot of tech debt in this code too. For a very simple example, consider that the analysis code is doing string searches to attempt to detect various syntatic constructs. https://github.com/sibyllinesoft/valknut/blob/aaf2b818a97b8d...

The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...

This was a thing in the US back in the 20s (and a bit before): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

9 AM to 9 PM 6 days a week. It's a "how long do we work" shorthand, like 955 (9 AM to 5 PM 5 days a week) or 864 (8 AM to 6 PM 4 days a week).

This glass bottle

Today, I asked Google if there was a constant time string comparison algorithm in the JRE. It told me "no, but you can roll your own". Then I perused the links and found that MessageDigest.isEqual exists.