patrick451

If you need to people to think out loud on the spot, go hire salesman. A person's ability to do this in real time has zero correlation with their ability to actually do engineering and communicate on technical matters. Real communication encompasses more than verbal stream of consciousness.

This is a huge problem with our legal system. Either make the law simple and absolute or don't make it a law. Intent should play absolutely zero role. Otherwise, all you get is a corrupt system of lawfare that interprets the intentionally ambiguous law to suit those in power.

If there were fewer laws, there would be less to disambiguate.

None of it

There is no point discussing these minutia, ever. Just ban discussing them in PRs and then you don't need an opinionated bot rife with false positives to "fix" them.

The boom in datacenter construction is driven mostly by the AI boom and most of us are sick everything AI too. We don't want to read AI slop, watch AI videos, talk AI customer service or visit a vibe coded website.

The vast majority of Americans prefer roads being dedicated to vehicles. I live in a town that is stealing drivable roadway for bike lanes. It's a total wast of tax dollars. There is never anybody in this bike lanes. Because even in this flaming blue, bike friendly city, people drive because it's just better.

> Which is really no different from someone choosing to terminate.

If you std::abort(), you'll get a useful stack trace in the core dump. If you crash from an unhandled exception, you don't. That's a pretty huge difference and is one of the reasons exceptions suck.

No, they are doing everything they can to ensure that only the people who are legally allowed to vote are the ones voting.

You are failing to make an argument for why stable sorting is objectively the correct choice. Just because something doesn't match your expectations doesn't make it wrong.

> Users don’t care whether the code was written by AI or by hand, or which framework you used. They care that the product works.

If I wanted to care about what users want, I would have been a founder or salesman, not an engineer.

> Sure, both languages offer both generic comparison sorts†. But the defaults matter and as always in C++ the defaults are wrong, here it's reflected in naming.

Why, exactly, is the c++ std::sort "wrong"? There are tradeoffs both ways. You happen to prefer stable sorting to speed, but that is a preference not an objective fact.

I work in a FAANG. My sense is that most of my teammates are loving the AI. Personally, I hate the AI tools and the hype around them and what it has turned this job into. My own morale has never been lower in the 7 years I've been there and I'll probably try to switch careers or semi retire sooner or later.

We should not treat this as an acceptable strategy. If we do not have a viable mitigation for the risks of AI, then AI should be banned from public usage, just like nuclear weapons.

Exactly. At the very least, we should be treating AI like nuclear weapons. It can exist but it should be locked away and never used.

> Sure, we built something in 2 mos that would have otherwise taken us 6 mos, but now I'm fixing the mess that we caused.

You didn't actually build it in 2 months.

There are countless other stories about the AI's spouting complete bullshit. This easily wastes as much time as they save.

Context: I work in robotics. We use mostly c++ and python. The entire team is about 200 though the subset I regularly interact with is maybe 50.

I basically don't use AI for coding at all. When I have tried it, it's just half working garbage and trying to describe what I want in natural language is just miserable. It feels like trying to communicate via smoke signals.

I'll be a classical engineer until they fire me and then go do something else. So far, that's working. We've had multiple rounds of large layoffs in the last year and somehow I'm still here.

This comparison is useless until rust commits to a stable ABI.

> The first thing you need when you make something new is making it work, it is much better that it works badly than having something not working at all.

It is better for something to not exist than for a shitty version to exist. Software doesn't get better over time, it gets worse. If you make a bad, suboptimal choice today chances are that solution becomes permanent. It's telling that all of your examples of increasing efficiency are not software.

If are aren't going to do it well, don't do it.

Tiny suggestion: make the visualization for torch.zeros and torch.ones have the same y-axis limits so the difference is visually separated.

At least you can read the switch statement. One of the worst features of c++ is all of the code that gets generated for you automatically.

No human needs to have seen an elephant standing in the road before to know that you should not drive through an elephant standing in the road. These are not "long tail" events as the waymo says. It's a big object in the road. You have seen that hundreds of thousands of times. Calling that a long tail event is an admission that your model has zero ability to generalize.

Ideally, we would just ban AI content altogether.

After you have owned a car for five years, can I come steal it?

It's basically the same dynamic as hedonic adjustment in the CPI calculations. Cars may cost twice as much now they have usb chargers built in so inflation isn't really that bad.

If I create something, I should get to dictate how it is used not just until I die but for eternity.

Until the EU gets their act together on free speech, it's high time the united states hits them with aggressive economic sanctions.

This game thinks buffalo and bison are the same thing and elk and deer are the same thing. Which is absurd, they even require buying different tags when hunting.

I don't think it's fine for large companies to intentionally lose money to drive smaller competitors out of business. In fact, I think this practice should be illegal and that all who participated should be in jail.