bostonOU

Ok, but (and this is the whole point) where _should_ we use LLMs? Because your comment could easily be said to someone writing code.

If slop === LLM involved, that's too reductive. If LLM does all the work, that's also too reductive.

> go anywhere beyond the usual AI good/bad arguments This is literally the point of the post. AI is not good or bad just like the internet was not all bubble or all value. The goal is to better understand how to use ai well. I'd rather try writing my thoughts than just dump a bunch of notes and diagrams on a blog

I originally had the content of the tweet and when posting switched it to have the embedding. So ironically, the error you're pointing out was my manual fix

It seems like a lot of folks arguing about rather or not we need to still read code.

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/ClojureScript-Optimizatio...

The immutability of Om/cljs means that the code for determining re-renders (shouldUpdate lifecycle method) is (always?) faster than React.

I'd bet that eating the fruit & vegetables would be better. But at this point, neither my wife or I will be eating kale or celery for breakfast. Juicing helps us at least some vegetables in our diet. Baby steps.

I was replying to that quote of yours, meaning that it doesn't take an excessive amount of fruit to make 8 oz. of juice.

I admitted that I don't know about the science of sugar, but I have a hard time believing that fresh fruit juice is equivalent to Coca Cola with some vitamins added in.

In the Romans verse, it explains that God has shown His love for everyone. He did it without expectations for something in return. He did it for people who couldn't repay Him. He did it for people that were His enemies. This is by definition unconditional and there isn't a single verse in the Bible that contradicts this.

Matthew 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

The Matthew verse shows that this love must be accepted. Jesus says that He wants to show His love in a close relationship, but the expressions of His love are rejected.

That Matthew verse also points to something that is often overlooked/misunderstood about hell. The worst thing about hell is not fire, darkness, demons, etc. The worst and most significant thing about hell is being separated from God. Heaven is where people have reciprocated God's love and experience complete intimacy with Him. Hell is where people have rejected God and experience complete separation from Him. With that understanding, it shows that it makes no sense to say "God sent someone to hell." Hell is the choice of someone that has rejected God's love. God, not being a rapist, does not force anyone to love Him.

1) Is he married or looking to get married? 2) Does he have kids or plan to have them soon? 3) Has he had any serious health issues in his family (e.g. history of heart disease)?

Obviously, those type of questions can get you in trouble if they are asked on an employer->employee basis. But in the course of really getting to know someone, those types of things will come up. It's then on you to think about what you'd want in that situation and do it for them.

So if ex-designer was planning on having kids, you might consider the cost of the family plan and be willing to splurge on that at the expense of the beer and snacks budget (or something focused on single people).

My main problems with employers have been their ignorance and/or lack of concern about what is important to me. I had one company that bragged about fully paying for our health insurance. Well, the owners of the company all had several kids. I didn't even have a girlfriend at the time. Health insurance as a young, healthy, single guy was barely even on my radar. That was easily accessible data (which they had), and yet they didn't act on it at all.

Simply, put yourself in their shoes and ask, "What would I want in this situation?" Considering you were friends with the ex-designer, my thought would be that you could have probably spent more time thinking about what he wanted instead of just asking. For some reason, many people won't speak up about what they want. Many times they themselves don't know until someone shows it to them.

My 2 cents.

Awesome work!

- Put at least 20% down on your home.

- Choose a 15-year, fixed-rate conventional mortgage.

- Have a strong employment history and personal income to support the loan.

- Demonstrate 4–6 trade lines that span 18–24 months. These are just regularly recurring expenses such as rent, electric bills, water bills, cell phones, etc.

[1] http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-truth-about-your-credi...

[2] http://www.churchillmortgage.com/info/no-credit-score.aspx

1) '[\d]' means any digit

2) '+' means one or more

3) '[\d]+' means one or more digits

Understanding that is not hard or tricky at all. Using that to build a complicated regular expression is hard.

I think that's the author's point. Understanding the concept of a pointer or recursion is not hard. Actually using those concepts to build something takes practice and hard work.

edit: formatting

That's the quote that's been banging around in my head since I've been trying to clean up the mess left by the programmer I replaced.

When I think of a good programmer, I think that reading/understanding their code should be as simple as possible. If I'm reading through the controller of a basic Rails app, it should be pretty simple. I should be able to easily figure out what's going on. I shouldn't see a 100 line action that mixes view and model code. If I'm reading through the Rails core, I should expect to spend significant time understanding what's going on. Simple as possible, but not simpler.

In my experience, bad programmers take misguided pride in writing complex code (which is always more brittle than clean, clear code). Or they think you are the bad programmer because you don't immediately understand it.

Good programmers are programmers that are fun to work with (code-wise especially) that get things done. At least that's my working definition.

Here's how I judge myself:

1) Do other programmers have good things to say about working with me?

2) Do other programmers have good things to say about my code?

3) Do I get things done/working?

4) When I read my old code, do I understand it quickly (relative to the complexity)?

5) When I read my old code, do I see things that I could have done better (shows personal growth)?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is always on my mind as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

edit: formatting, typo