devin

Clicking the back button and having it work as expected was nice, also.

It’s a clear spoonerism.

Can, or should?

Ha! I can relate. I have cash set aside for just such an occasion. It's that second part that's the tricky bit, eh?

My hope for such an event is mostly to bring tech leadership types back down to planet earth and to get them to shut up for a few minutes. There are a lot of AI charlatans who need to be humbled by the markets so the serious folks among us can get back to doing real work.

ETA: I also guess I sort of hope for it because this whole cycle has felt so incredibly irrational that I desire a small return to sanity, even if it comes at the cost of some of my retirement.

ApoB is no doubt responsve to medication, but my understanding is that diet and exercise can't get anywhere close to achieving that 85% number.

Behavioral changes can only do so much to lower ApoB. It is a meaningful marker and may trigger additional workup. It may also signal that you should at least consider a statin.

ApoA is completely out of your control and will not change with behavioral modification.

So, no, you're incorrect that these tests are superfluous and all you need to say is "diet and exercise". Besides, even if that was always the answer to these results, you should still have a baseline to see if behavioral modification is doing anything.

Sources? That 1% number is in my understanding wildly incorrect for statins, if that's what you're referring to. Are you comparing use of statins for people who already are low risk for heart attack over the next 10 years?

I don't think pairing, nor TDD come anywhere close to the abdication of responsibility that agentic programming does.

The good devs I know avoid dependencies like the plague.

I had a similar take, but I was wrong.

It's going to be funny/sad to watch people who have deeply misapplied LLM tech discover "oh gee, this is pretty expensive. I guess I can just use ML?"

Their lot (VP-level certainly) rotates in and out, often with 3-4 layers of middle management between them and the crews executing, which makes direct assignment of blame exceedingly difficult. Every 3-4 years you get a near-complete rotation of leadership in an area of †he business, and any memory of what anyone was trying to achieve before is forgotten, either intentionally or unintentionally, and then you do it all over again.

It's different to me from text written by another person, because it is awful in a way that even a bad human writer can't replicate without first performing a lobotomy on themself.

Did you forget to put an /s on this?

> The architectural differences that made a console more compelling than a standalone PC are largely gone.

No, the main driver is still there. People do not want to build and maintain PCs. Your 14-year-old nephew doesn't want to do it, either. People want to turn on a box and play a game. I am technical and I want absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a PC. I'll take the console experience every single time.

Sure, but it's also feels like incredibly short-term thinking. Embarrassingly so.

Then after your hour long drive it happens? Great!

Not sure what your point is.

You can just restate the question then to say: If the models are so good, why can't they run a business?

I hear you, but also I'm not so sure. I remember Log4j, heartbleed, etc. and they were just as serious, but I don't recall people just going dark immediately. Scripts to validate whether or not you had exposure were built, people ran them, and if you did have exposure you started checking to see whether or not it was exploited. This timeline for this seems wildly different to me.

I think the article is suggesting that a sober risk assessment was not done by most folks period, not that they merely perceived the risk differently.

Same. People are drunk on "agentic" and reality is coming for them. It's also coming for the holdouts who say it has no effect.

Like a lot of tech before it I think the overriding theme is misapplication during a hype cycle.

Fair enough. I call it out because I know that some docs are trying it for people who have a history of substance abuse, and as a first line instead of jumping straight to benzos because of their risk profile. A lot of the reports I've read about hydroxizine are "it just knocks me out, which is I guess better than panicking", but also "it just knocks me out" seems preferable to risking dependency and the hell that benzo withdrawal can become.

Edit: Granted, falling asleep is not really conducive to being able to work. So I imagine there a number of people where "it made me fall asleep, but I can't do my job like that" is a non-starter, and short-term benzos is the only way forward.

Isn't it fairly standard these days for docs to offer hydroxizine instead of a benzo for panic attacks?

It blew my mind to enter college and peer review other people's papers. Up until that point I understood that there was a range of capability with writing, but I figured that in college courses the floor would be pushed up. I was dead wrong, and it was shocking to me that these folks had managed to get all the way through high school writing like 8th graders.

ETA: This is over 20 years ago, btw. I hear it's gotten materially worse. That terrifies me.

And Clojure. Perhaps these aren't considered low resource. I had good results in Clojure over a year ago.

I spent years programming for myself, for free. I did this because I loved it, not because I was interested in the VC game.

In some ways it feels like exactly what you'd do if you wanted to tank your product over the coming years. I look back at the last 20 years or so, and what I see over and over is that one player in a space gets huge, keeps adding features, loses sight of what makes them a good market fit, and then 10 small upstarts swoop in to bring back the opinionated or simple view again. One or two win, and then eventually they repeat the same mistake.

I'm not trying to buy a labyrinth.