throwaway150

> The funny thing is I’ve never seen an author of a post chime in and say “hey! I wrote this entirely myself” on an AI accusation.

I've seen this happen many times here on HN where the one accused comes back and says that they did in fact write it themselves.

Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45824197

I don't know how you can be so sure about that sentence being written by LLM. I can imagine it is perfectly possible that a human could've written that. I mean, on some day I might write a sentence just like that.

I think HN should really ban complaints about LLM written text. It is annoying at best and a discouraging insinuation at worst. The insinuation is really offensive when the insinuation is false and the author in fact wrote the sentence with their own brain.

I don't know if this sentence was written by LLM or not but people will definitely use LLMs to revise and refine posts. No amount of complaining will stop this. It is the new reality. It's a trend that will only continue to grow. These incessant complaints about LLM-written text don't help and they make the comment threads really boring. HN should really introduce a rule to ban such complaints just like it bans complaints about tangential annoyances like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage

> If an LLM is typing that code - and it can maintain a test suite that shows everything works correctly - maybe we don't need that abstraction after all.

But this is a highly non-trivial problem. How do you even possibly manually verify that the test suite is complete and tests all possible corner cases (of which there are so many because synchronizing state is a hard problem)?

At least React solves this problem in a non-stochastic, deterministic manner. What can be a good reason to replace something like React that works determinstically with LLM-assisted code that is generated stochastically and there's no easy way to manually verify if the implementation or the test suite is correct and complete?

> You don't have a choice pasting links into some apps. They may strip out query and hash components, percent encode, force URL shortener services, etc.

If an app is mangling the URL by stripping the query and hash components, then it is breaking URLs and you have a bigger problem than worrying about URLs being logged. Stop using such apps immediately and report the bugs to the app developers.

> We're animals driven by self-interest. What should civility even mean here

That self-interest has led to cooperation between humans. Humans have evolved to work together, cooperate, form social bonds, and friendships because doing so improves survival and wellbeing over the long run. Civility is part of that toolkit. It is not a denial of self-interest. Civility is part of that self-interest.

Typos aren't making the hash part turn into something else. Like your parent comment explained to you, the hash part is not sent to the server. If you go out of your way to mangle the URL then of course a mangled URL without hash will likely get logged to the server. But I'm not sure how one would manage to go so much out of the way that they mangle the URL in a way that removes the hash.

How do you share after that? I can open devtools and change the attribute but the URL doesn't update after that.

I read the article twice and still doesn't make sense. I tried to make sense but no matter how I slice and dice the article, the "inverse parentheses" idea seems inconsistent or ill defined.

Two comments here which explain the ill-definedness of it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46352560

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46352697

It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it. Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that were inferior but were community-developed, community-maintained and libre.

The writing is in the wall. First it was UX annoyances. Then it was GitHub Actions woes. Now it is paying money for running their software on your own hardware. It's only going to go downhill. Is it a good time now to learn from our mistakes and convince our teams and management to use community-maintained, libre alternatives? They may be inferior. They may lack features. But they're not going to pull user hostile tricks like this on you and me. And hey, if they are lacking features, maybe we should convince our management to let us contribute time to the community to add those features? It's a much better investment than sinking money into a software that will only grow more and more user hostile, isn't it?

Not surprising because Hashicorp doesn't exist anymore. Obviously the name exists. But that's about it. It's just a name. The spirit is gone. The spirit is now IBM. So you should calibrate your expectations accordingly.

I don't understand the outrage in some of the comments. The certificate transparency logs are literally meant to be read by absolutely whoever wants to read them. The clue is right in the name. It's transparency logs! Transparency!

I just don't understand how people with no clue whatsoever about what's going on feel so confident to express outrage over something they don't even understand! I don't mind someone not knowing something. Everybody has to learn things somewhere for the first time. But couldn't they just keep their outrage to themselves and take some time to educate themselves, to find out whether that outrage is actually well placed?

Some of the comments in the OP are also misinformed or illogical. But there's one guy there correcting them so that's good. I mean I'd say that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency or literally any other post about CT is going to be far more informative than this OP!

> After about a minute of flying the game checks your state and plays a little cutscene showing either a textbook landing or an expensive fireball.

So the game does not let the player go all the way to perform the landing? That'd be dissatisfying?

Big tech giants locking unsuspecting users out of their digital lives is nothing new. What would it take for our society to stop relying on these closed, walled gardens for critical stuff?

How many account lockouts must occur before we accept that digital life built on permission rather than ownership is inherently fragile?

Python too. Honestly, any mature logger should allow embedding logs in library code that can be turned on or off by the end user. This was a solved problem 20 years ago. I honestly don't see what's so novel about this today. Or is this speaking to the sorry state of software engineering that plagues the JavaScript world?

> You can’t make anything truly radical with it. By definition, LLMs are trained on what has come before. In addition to being already-discovered territory, existing code is buggy and broken and sloppy and, as anyone who has ever written code knows, absolutely embarrassing to look at.

I don't understand this argument. I mean the same applies for books. All books teach you what has come before. Nobody says "You can't make anything truly radical with books". Radical things are built by people after reading those books. Why can't people build radical things after learning or after being assisted by LLMs?

There are large communities on the internet for solving competitive programming problems. Checkout Topcoder, Codeforces, etc. They have their own subculture and the regular winners are celebrities in that subculture. These people aren't solving these problems to get a job or interview with FANG or anything. They just do it as a sport. Like playing Chess or Scrabble.

> The issue is that prediction is "part" of the human thought process, it's not the full story...

Do you have a proof for this?

Surely such a profound claim about human thought process must have a solid proof somewhere? Otherwise who's to say all of human thought process is not just a derivative of "predicting the next thing"?

Thanks!

Cool poster! If you don't mind me asking, would you share what tools you use to create this poster? You've got syntax highlighting going on there too. What did you use for that?

Nothing wrong with it. Why would you assume the author is in anyway hinting that there's something wrong with using the standard JDK for Java code?

> Principles of Slack Maximalism for Autists in Charge

I dislike the OP's post too. But throwing around terms like "autists" as a joke or snark is in very poor taste. Not every socially awkward or unreasonable person is an autist. Not all autists experience the same kind of social awkwardness. There are people and parents who genuinely live stressful lives due to dealing with autism. Let us not use it as a derogatory term.

Your code is showing the numbers 5, 10, 20. that's not correct, is it?

Yours prints 1. 2. Fizz 4. 5. Buzz Fizz 7.

But it should be 1. 2. Fizz 4. Buzz Fizz 7.

> what's the endgame?

Is it not obvious? The endgame is to publish a blogpost that sounds interesting. That itself may be the reward and the endgame for the author.

Someone who has worked for 25 years would definitely have stories. I've worked far longer than that. I've got stories too. But none of the stories are as ridiculous as a "coworker" thinking that of all things IntelliJ would lead to the doom of software engineering or multimedia would lead to the collapse of an industry. I mean, what the heck! How does one even go from "multimedia" to "collapse of an industry". There is no logical connection. On the other hand, "multimedia" creates more work in the industry.

So my application of Occam's Razor tells me, surely the stories are made up to set up strawman that they can take down one by one to write an interesting blog post.

But I'll reiterate that it's a good post. I can like a post and find issues with it at the same time. I find all the strawman a bit forced which detracts from the reading experience.

Forgive me but a lot of the examples seem like strawman.

> The dream of “multimedia” became commonplace and everyone just accepted it as normal. I’m not aware of any industries that collapsed dramatically due to multimedia.

But "multimedia" was never purported to be something that would lead to collapse of any segment of the industry, much less industries. If anything, the multimedia hype was purported to increase IT work which it did for some years.

> In 2000 a coworker took me aside and showed me his brand-new copy of IntelliJ IDE. “It’s over for us,” he said, “this thing makes it so programmers aren’t strictly necessary, like one person can operate this tool and they can lay the rest of us off.”

I've a hard time believing this. Literally nobody I've met was ever mistaken that IntelliJ would mean the doom of software engineering work. It's a great IDE and all IDE including IntelliJ required engineers to write code with them. Nobody was foolish enough to really think one engineer or one manager or one salesperson can "operate" IntelliJ and generate all the code to meet business requirements.

> And then he showed me the killer feature “that’s going to get us all out of a job:” the refactoring tools.

I'll bet there was no such "coworker". No sane person would think "refactoring" could mean "magically understand business requirements and write code"? All of this sounds like strawman setup so that the author could go on to making their next point like the bit where he challenged his "coworker" and asked if refactoring tools can write new code.

Don't get me wrong. The rest of the post is on money though. I just think the post would do better without these fake stories to set up strawmans only to take them down. Feels a bit forced!

As someone who has lived in several countries, I do not believe every developed nation achieves better healthcare outcomes than the United States. Many European countries, as well as Canada, offer some form of universal coverage with free general treatment but waiting times for appointments and procedures can vary widely. That said, I still think universal healthcare is preferable, as these systems tend to prioritize urgent cases effectively and ensure that emergency treatment is fully covered for free.

I think, it's only the Asian countries who have got cheap, easy, and effective healthcare where you can not only get appointments quickly but you can get treatment for cheap too but their emergency services are not always as streamlined as those in more developed systems. There is no clear overall winner. Some places excel in certain aspects. Others perform better in different areas.

This is one of those posts where I cannot work out if this is earnest or satire. I kept waiting for a punchline but I don't know if it ever came. Makes me suspect the whole thing was the punchline.

> this sort of response is baffling to me

I'm struggling to understand the negative tone in your reply to the parent comment. They simply offered an additional resource on the topic. Rather than welcoming it, you seem to have taken issue with it. One of the strengths of HN threads is that people often contribute further material that others may find helpful.

The video is useful but so is the Wiki article. Some readers will prefer the video, some the article, and some both. Why object to someone sharing another link?

All of this makes sense. Thank you for explaining. I don't think I understand the difference though.

Like are they calling the "GitHub pull request" workflow as the push model? What is "push" about it though? I can download all the pull request patches to my local and work offline, can't I?

> Additionally, GitHub seems to encourage a "push model" in which you are notified when a new event occurs in your project(s), but I don't want to work with that model. Instead, I prefer it to work as a "pull model", so I only get updates when I specifically look for them. This model would also allow me to easily work offline. Unfortunately, I see that the same push model has been copied to alternative forges.

Someone kind enough to explain this to me? What's the difference between push model and pull model? What about push model makes it difficult to work offline?

It definitely looks only annoying by modern standards because today we are willing to let websites load MBs of crap into our browser to show text news and nobody thinks twice about it.

But when Clippy was forced upon us then it definitely felt user hostile. The threshold for what computer users (there were fewer of them) would call user hostile was lower then. The only redeeming feature of Clippy was that you could disable it easily. But it was still user hostile when it ran.

So yes, coming from the context of those old days, Clippy was both annoying and user hostile then.

It's a pet peeve of mine that the norms have changed so much so that such user hostile UX is considered "annoying" at most today when the right term for it IMO is "user hostile".