uhhhd

Sometimes it feels like hiring ethics folks is almost all downside for companies. I genuinely don’t understand why they keep doing it.

It seems like the pattern is almost always the same: the ethics team exists quietly in the background, and the only time anyone hears about them is when they either publicly leave the company or start a campaign against it.

So what exactly is the business case? Is it actually worth maintaining an ethics function just to be able to say you have one, when the only time it becomes visible is when it goes against the company publicly? And if this outcome is so predictable, why do companies keep hiring these people in the first place?

Counterpoint: This no longer matters because we are not going back to hand-writing these functions. These patterns were designed to make code easier for humans to read and write, but that is no longer the primary way software is built.

It can be both. People ride horses for leisure; no one commutes on them.

This. Exactly this. You'll be unemployed. He'll still have tenure.

I think we’re talking past each other. My point isn’t that jj is bad. It’s that it’s solving problems that are rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Tools like git and jj exist to help humans manage state: branches, commits, rebases, conflicts, history curation. That whole model assumes a human is directly manipulating and reasoning about the codebase.

With LLMs in the loop, that assumption breaks. I don’t need to think in terms of branches or commits. I describe intent, and the model handles the mechanics of editing, reconciling, and producing a coherent result. Source control becomes an implementation detail of the toolchain, not something I actively operate.

jj is an improvement over git for humans, but that’s exactly why it feels like a local maximum. It refines a workflow that is already being abstracted away.

I’m not saying version control disappears. I’m saying it moves down a layer, the same way memory management or instruction scheduling did. When that happens, optimizing the human interface to it matters a lot less.

You don’t need jj for this anymore. The whole premise of optimizing human workflows around source control is becoming obsolete.

When LLMs are driving development, source control stops being an active cognitive concern and becomes a passive implementation detail. The unit of work is no longer “branches” or “commits,” it’s intent. You describe what you want, the model generates, refactors, and reconciles changes across parallel streams automatically.

Parallel workstreams used to require careful coordination: rebasing, merging, conflict resolution, mental bookkeeping of state. That overhead existed because humans were the bottleneck. Once an LLM is managing the codebase, it can reason over the entire state space continuously and resolve those conflicts as part of generation, not as a separate step.

In that world, tools like jj are optimizing a layer that’s already being abstracted away. It’s similar to how no one optimizes around assembly anymore. It still exists, it still matters at a lower level, but it’s no longer where productivity is gained.

I love this stuff as a hobbyist, but professionally I can't help but think this is all obsolete in the age of agent-driven development. I wish jj was around a decade ago.

There are towns in England and America where I can't understand them today.

Yes supporting the Islamists puts you in the same league as the Islamists.

"Palestine Action" is terrorism.

No it did/is not.

GPT wrapper.

So true, why is that whole sector so bad?

This is petty and bad business. No serious entrepreneur or leader worth his salt cares about this.

Nowhere in the article does he explain why the use of AI is inherently problematic or why it necessitates rewriting the project plan. Work product is either good or bad, and responsibility for its quality rests with the person delivering it. The tools used to produce the work are irrelevant. In fact, for those who prioritize execution speed, the use of labor-saving tools should be encouraged wherever feasible.

This comment was generated by chatgpt (inspired by me).

Terrorism targets civilians. So no, this isn't terrorism.

This is wise

Does this hurt the bird?

or.... they were in the process of building bombs. (or what you said, but probably bombs).

The photos of the facilities are literally all over the internet. The IAEA knew about it and knew Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium. This isn't Iraq 2.

References to Israel are not unnecessary details when protestors call for the elimination of the only existing Jewish state. Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel. Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.

"I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?" That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit. And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.

Because the reputational damage to Harvard would probably exceed the minimal cost of litigating this (given its endowment) if they thought they would win. It's not evidence in legal sense, but it's a strong suggestion of culpability. Harvard isn't some kid that was arrested on false charges and settles because they're facing jail time. This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.

That Harvard chose to settle this lawsuit rather than litigate it. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...

If you prefer a summary:

Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.

Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.

Why not try to do the minimum amount of research before complaining about it online? Here's a complaint from a recent lawsuit by a collection of Jewish Harvard students against the university. It's a good starting point. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...

The Middle East Monitor is Qatari state propaganda.

Why was this flagged?

Fast fire. You've gotten past the hard part, admitting the mistake. The quicker you let someone like that go, the better for you and your team. The mistake here would be to work on their performance and drag it on. Your team morale will take a big hit. At best you'll see a marginal performance improvement over months. At worst you'll waste months on this employee and have to fire them anyway.

based.