tanseydavid

I will continue to use em-dashes as I always have.

When someone uses the presence of em-dash as the only signal for AI-generated then they are simply lazy.

Another standing reminder:

LONG position: potential losses (FIXED), potential gains (INFINITE)

SHORT position: potential losses (INFINITE), potential gains (FIXED)

If one accused them of being "a bunch of jerk-offs", what argument could they possibly have in their own defense?

"Defund the police/abolish prisons" is a good example IMHO.

>> is your Weather app important enough to waste 1GB on your users' PCs?

I agree. I don't want or need a weather app on my machine.

Did not ask for it and I do not use it. Why should it be using any of my RAM?

And check the @#$% calendar in MS Teams or Outlook.

Emdashes as the sole signal is just wrongheaded. Read a piece (a least a little bit of it) to determine if it is slop before calling it AI-slop. Slop is slop but you have to digest at least some of it before the determination can be made.

Consider yourself lucky. This happens very frequently these days.

Amazing. I really like this.

Anduril will probably your steal design next week for military use.

> With two left feet

...and about two feet left before the can hits the wall.

It does not even have to be slop, the compulsion to call out AI-involvement in writing is out of control, esp. on HN.

Em-dashes as the signal is the most-upsetting for me. I have been using them properly and frequently for decades.

Slop is slop. If it is AI-slop then fine, go ahead and call it out.

> I agree with all of this, but the inverse is just as bad.

The inverse would be "The Religion of Slow".

I have never seen or experienced anything remotely like this in the real world.

Have you?

There is not a single reply where you understood the position you were arguing with.

The compulsion of pointing it out has becomes very annoying IMHO.

Slop is slop -- if it is AI generated slop then fine, call it out.

If it is not slop what is the point of this compulsion? It derails a lot of threads when the content is actually good.

> The trick is knowing the difference between.

The trick is striking a balance. The article is arguing that there is little to no balance and that "apparent speed" trumps all other concerns.

Hence the use of the word "Religion" in the title.

It is a metaphor.

Getting pedantic about the simple math laid out in the metaphor seems like you have lost the plot.

It seems as if you did not really read the article.

The piece is titled "Religion of Speed" -- in other words speed (or apparent speed) as the guiding principle over anything else.

It says nothing even remotely like "you should take 6 months to do something that can be accomplished in 6 weeks."

And this statement:

"There is definitely a point where you are going too fast, but the customer will almost certainly let you know when this happens. Let them decide for you how fast is too fast"

is baffling to me.

In my experience (40+ years in software development) I have never had a customer/client that would be in a position to have the proper situational awareness + technical depth to make this judgement call.

And even worse I would guess that if even this was not the case that 95% of the time they would not say you're going too fast, instead they would ask to go faster.

A very interesting twist on an old favorite. Nicely done.

I really like the many variations from the original that you have added (the physics like spin and anti-gravity).

These surprises made it far-more-interesting to play than I expected.

Point of clarity: my </sarc> remark was not in reference to the original post and project (which I love!).

It was in reference to this comment (which I should have pasted):

> Yeah this $100k system with all its expensive add ons is there to push a single button

IMHO lossy/lossless feels like the wrong term to use for natural-language text.

Every time natural-language passes from one human to another whether verbally or in the written word, there is a greater than zero percent chance that the meaning will be received/understood in a way that is "lossy" compared to the communicating party's intent. The so-called "telephone game" is a very good example of this.

It seems true that the lossy problem arises even without any LLMs or any intentional transformations.

Lossless in other domains basically means perfect-fidelity carried across copies. Natural language seems almost incapable of this ideal.

This is an AI app from the 1950s! Developed by Rube Goldberg who fully intended to vibe code the scoring part later. </sarc>

I loved this piece. The value is in the abstract concepts NOT in specific cases people are posting.

It is about the deliberate management over one's own internal state which is the only thing one has true control over.

Resentment, especially so-called justified-resentment literally steals from other parts of my life experience that are not connected in any way to the person, place, thing or situation that I am feeling resentment towards.

It is ultimately a choice but not an easy or obvious choice.

Every decision I ever make no matter how trivial it seems, has an associated sacrifice connected to it. Much of the time I want to think and act as if this were not the case.

This piece is a little odd for me. I don't understand the logic behind this:

"read Kant and found it to be dense and impenetrable...an AI generated summary would have helped"

followed by "Would it have improved comprehension? No."

Why? Because "research says so."

Wut?

(still waiting for one or more HN commenters to freak out because the article has gasp! multiple em-dashes)

Hey, there are some AI-affirmative people in Marin County (949).

This takes me back to the frustrations of trying to record band rehearsals in small spaces using the built-in-mic (a very long time ago).

Poor fidelity of cassette tape medium was the least of the issues. The biggest problem was the built in mic's inability to handle the overall volume.

Lots of experimentation with placement of the recorder (and thus mic) within the rehearsal space would eventually yield results that were no longer useless -- but still pretty, pretty bad. I do not miss cassette.

To be honest I don't really even miss analog -- but this comes to down convenience and flexibility rather than fidelity comparisons.

Said another way: there are no analog DAWs (a redundant and captain-obvious statement, I do realize).

The price + graphics and sound (out-of-the-box) was what really made the difference for me and self-learning.

But I learned a lot more about disk data organization (hardware-level) via the Apple IIs that were at school.

An interesting side-note: a major factor in my family's decision to get me any computer at all was that I was staying after school almost everyday until usually 7pm.

Mom thought surely I must be lying about it and doing something else, probably nothing good.

She made a appointment to meet with the Computer teacher to ask him directly: he confirmed that I was there regularly, had keys for the computer room, and that maybe she should consider getting me my own machine for home.

Apple and Google (via smartphones) are in literally everyone's pocket.

Running KIMI on a phone is not possible today and I agree with you that it will "probably be years before..." it is.

But how many years do you guess? I personally do not think it will take even 10 years for the situation to be commonplace.

While I agree that this phrase is most commonly spoken in a figurative sense, folks with marginal heart health have a much greater than 0% chance of having something of this nature trigger an actual heart attack.

For anything below a Trillion, you should just take it out petty-cash. </sarc>

My sympathies -- I know I would be overcome with panic in such a situation.