tenacious_tuna

Your middle point is great and very relatable; I've had the same frustration/argument with myself before: Am I playing this game because I actually want to, or because it's "easier" than anything else I could be doing?

Props to you for pushing yourself to confront the uncomfortable!

> It finally hit me how much time I wasted on that game.

I don't agree that leisure is inherently wasting time, which I think is a pretty common belief across North America in general and within Tech specifically. I don't know if that's what you're asserting, but it does seem to be the thesis of the backing site ("if you spent all this time that you spent on a leisure activity elsewhere, you could have XYZ 'better' skill!")

Of course, all things in balance; gaming addiction is a thing, and I've absolutely been guilty of using Titanfall 2 to farm dopamine rather than taking my dog for a walk or tidying my room.

I'm glad this helped you, but I already feel like my life is under enough pressure to be more efficient, more productive, have more of an impact, when I'd really just like to slow down and enjoy things more.

(I'm also a little sad, I originally thought this would map time spent in a game to a _corresponding_ skill, e.g. "400 hours in space engineers" -> "level 5 systems architect," or something. That's on me, it's not a criticism, but it's influencing my disappointment.)

> I'm going to talk to you whether you like it not. If you don't want to talk to people, then maybe don't put yourself in a social setting?

You seem to have a strange definition of what's a social situation. Maybe I want to be around people without talking to them; if I wanted to strike up conversation with strangers, I'd sit at a bar.

You're obviously conscious of the fact that you may be doing something that people don't want, which makes it all the more confusing to me that you're upset about people possibly preferring their phones to books: if you're going to interrupt them either way and potentially invade their space, why do you care how they're signalling? (For the record, I don't think people inherently are signalling, but you seem to--it's the inconsistency in your own stated approach that's confusing me.)

> Even if you're just reading an e-book the phone contributes to the perceived loneliness of those around you.

This is a wild projection of your own experience onto someone else's actions.

> If you really want to read a book in peace, try a library.

I've quite enjoyed the times I've taken a book to a restaurant and read over a meal. I do not appreciate you, or people like you, dictating how I ought to act in public in a way that doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest.

I don't want to start conversations when I'm alone at a table with my book. The fact that you find it somehow less social for me to be on my phone instead of reading a book when I am minding my own business at my own table seems like a tremendous failure in your own boundaries and expectations of other people.

people at my org were gleeful when they learned they could hook LLMs into Slack. Even if we had some reliable, well-used signature system, I think people would just let AI use it to send emails on their behalf.

what's account creation on an esp32 running micropython? or an arduino? what happens when the law is expanded to require biometric enforcement of what the user reports?

Also, I don't want my OS to report my age range to every website I visit anyway.

> Shipping “quality only” work for a long time can be stressful for your colleagues and the product teams.

I buried the lede a bit, but my frustration has been feeling like _nobody_ on my team prioritizes quality and instead optimizes for feature velocity, which then leaves some poor sod (me) to pick up the pieces to keep everything ticking over... but then I'm not shipping features.

At the end of the day if my value system is a mismatch from my employer's that's going to be a problem for me, it just baffles me that I keep ending up in what feels like an unsustainable situation that nobody else blinks at.

> These are exactly the kind of tasks that I ask an AI tool to perform.

Very reasonable nowadays, but those were things I was doing back in 2018 as a junior engineer.

> Some tasks will be given over entirely to agentic tools.

Absolutely, and I've found tremendous value in using agents to clean up old techdebt with oneline prompts. They run off, make the changes, modify tests, then put up a PR. It's brilliant and has fully reshaped my approach... but in a lot of ways expectations on my efficiency are much worse now because leadership thinks I can rewrite our techstack to another language over a weekend. It almost doesn't matter that I can pass all this tidying off onto an LLM because I'm expected to have 3x the output that I did a year ago.

Ultimately that's only an option if you can sustain the impact to your career (not getting promoted, or getting fired). My org (publicly traded, household name, <5k employees) is all-in on AI with the goal of having 100% of our code AI generated within the next year. We have all the same successes and failures as everyone else, there's nothing special about our case, but our technical leadership is fundamentally convinced that this is both viable and necessary, and will not be told otherwise.

People who disagree at all levels of seniority have been made to leave the organization.

Practically speaking, there's no sexy pitch you can make about doing quality grunt work. I've made that mistake virtually every time I've joined a company: I make performance improvements, I stabilize CI, I improve code readability, remove compiler warnings, you name it: but if you're not shipping features, if you're not driving the income needle, you have a much more difficult time framing your value to a non-engineering audience, who ultimately sign the paychecks.

Obviously this varies wildly by organization, but it's been true everywhere I've worked to varying degrees. Some companies (and bosses) are more self-aware than others, which can help for framing the conversation (and retaining one's sanity), but at the end of the day if I'm making a stand about how bad AI quality is, but my AI-using coworker has shipped six medium sized features, I'm not winning that argument.

It doesn't help that I think non-engineers view code quality as a technical boogeyman and an internal issue to their engineering divisions. Our technical leadership's attitude towards our incidents has been "just write better code," which... Well. I don't need to explain the ridiculousness of that statement in this forum, but it undermines most people's criticism of AI. Sure, it writes crap code and misses business requirements; but in the eyes of my product team? That's just dealing with engineers in general. It's not like they can tell the difference.

> Powertrain is not a concern. It's the load a bike can carry vs a car overall.

Sure, an automobile will pretty much always win out in raw capacity, but I'd argue it's a policy problem that makes us reliant on automobiles for day to day life. If people only needed a car for their weekly grocery trip but could bike to work or school or the doctor's office that would still significantly reduce our reliance on automobiles, with benefits in health and energy.

> I don't want to risk having an injury on a bike either. A car is much safer.

Also a reasonable concern, but again more of a policy problem: we prioritize cars over pretty much every other form of transportation to the detriment of everyone else in public spaces. If we had more protected walkways / bikeways then everyone would be safer.

In general I don't think we regulate the safe use of automobiles nearly as much as we ought to in the states. Leaving it as an individual concern makes it a race to the bottom, with everyone buying bigger and bigger cars in the name of safety, all other externalities be dammed.

> I have never seen one of these ridiculous looking bikes in any city or anywhere. > > Where do y'all live, a Dr. Suess book?

I saw them every day in Chicago. I see them every day in southern Ontario. I saw them whenever I visited Boston or NYC. Where do you live that you don't?

> I will not bike them in the rain, With soggy bags and squishy pain.

> I will not bike them up the hill, When every pedal feels like drill.

> I will not bike them when it’s hot, With sweat that pours and cheese that rots.

Given that other commenters have addressed basically all of these concerns (waterproof bags, electric assist, insulated bags) it seems more like you just want to be contrarian rather than cite specific problems and discuss if they can be solved.

this is one of the core conceits behind why Strong Towns / Not Just Bikes / urbanism discourse in general makes the disctinction between a "street", which is meant for people to walk along, go to stores/restaurants/etc, and "roads", which are meant to efficiently move traffic from one part of the city to another.

Combining them degrades the ability to address either point: efficiently moving traffic is inherently in conflict with being able to access businesses or having pedestrians nearby.

I'm not OP, but; Forgejo is much lighterweight than Gitlab for my usecase, and was cited as a more maintained version of Gitea, but that's just anecdote from my brain and I don't have sources, so take that with a truckload of salt.

I'd had a gitea instance before and it was appealing insofar as having the ability to mirror from or to a public repo, it had docker container registry capability, it ties into oauth, etc; I'm sure gitlab has much/all of that too, but forgejo's tiny, tiny footprint was very appealing for my resource-constrained selfhosted environment.

> clueless suggesting Gitlab

ad hominem isn't a very convincing argument, and as someone who also enjoys forgejo it doesn't make me feel good to see as the justification for another recommender.

> Households have shared computers.

I have about five Fedora desktops running in my house that I share with my partners. Domain-style logins are handled by FreeIPA. Basic login with the KDE Fedora spin works great.

I've been meaning to set up auto-mounting network shares and such, but haven't gotten around to it; but the login management is very convenient and we use every day.

That's not an explanation, that's a restatement of the claim.

This is really exciting! Discussions of our resource impact have come up a lot in my org's informal spaces, it's really exciting to see someone making a concerted effort to raise visibility into how much we spend in money or energy in what seem like benign actions.

I really like the emphasis you place that reducing environmental impact is reducing cost as well. Tying civic mindedness to pragmatism is essential in dollar-hungry spaces.

> Now the ones to avoid move around and it's all too likely that a newcomer is such a person.

This seems a wild generalization to make, though I guess "be suspicious of newcomers" is a little biologically hardwired. What's your epistemology for believing "newcomers" are "the ones to avoid"?

Inferring, an LLM

It's not just juniors. One of my partners carries a PhD in epidemiology and bimolecular science; they've been job searching for eight months with no bites, just silence. A friend of mine is a chemical engineering PhD, she's been searching for a year and just had her first interview.

I have eight years of software engineering experience but am only one rung up from the bottom of our SWE ladder, and we don't even hire the bottom rung anymore at my org. Seems like there's crushing pressure from above to limit hiring at every stage.

Who else is going to run the models?

> the notion that it lacks nuance to describe the intricacies of text rendering

I took this to mean that any non-domain-specific language may be bad at describing that domain, e.g. why physicists, mathematicians, chemists, etc. have a common symbology for the discipline, or why programming languages exist. i.e., not so much that English is uniquely bad among written human language for conveying these topics, but just that any non-specialized language may be.

Though, I think the author did a fair job, but I lack the domain experience to guess at where the misconceptions might lie.

Agreed; Or they're using CG-NAT, or consumer grade NAT behind CG-NAT, or....

> You just asserted that without explanation.

They linked a whole article detailing the complexities of specifically NAT traversal.

I should think it obvious that by removing an entire leaky layer of abstraction the process would be much simpler. Yes, you still need a coordination server, but instead of having to deduce the incoming/outgoing port mappings you can just share the "external IP" of each client--which in the IPV6 case isn't "external," it's just "the IP".

This is a common function of uPnP, which I've seen as features in router config pages since the mid 2000s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play#NAT_tr...

Anyone know if it's possible to bandwidth-limit the sync operations? I'd love to set up garage instances across my families' houses to act as a distributed backup, but I don't want to hose their (or my) down/uplink during awake hours. Having redundant selfhosted S3like storage would solve many problems for me, but I really need that capability.

+1 for harm reduction. it is a sad state of affairs, but it's better than nothing.

from the article:

> Initially, we experimented by building this as an app on Pebble, since it has a mic and I’m always wearing one. But, I realized quickly that this was suboptimal - it required me to use my other hand to press the button to start recording (lift-to-wake gestures and wake-words are too unreliable). This was tough to use while bicycling or carrying stuff.

> I'd much rather deal with some less stability and have a lot more resources

This strategy works so long as you're in the group of people who do indeed have "more resources," but breaks down if you're marginalized in any way, or if you don't want to support the exploitative system.

> Well now you get to read it.

Man, I wish this was true. I've given the same feedback on a colleague's clearly LLM-generated PRs. Initially I put effort into explaining why I was flagging the issues, now I just tag them with a sadface and my colleague replies "oh, cursor forgot." Clearly he isn't reading the PRs before they make it to me; so long as it's past lint and our test suite he just sends the PR.

I'd worry less if the LLMs weren't prone to modifying the preconditions of the test whenever they fail such that the tests get neutered, rather than correctly resolving the logic issues.