pmg102
pmg102 on Hacker News
What does 'prefer' mean here?
I would say writing it myself is more enjoyable (in some cases). But I quite understand that I am not paid to enjoy myself. I'd say it's quicker getting AI to do it and reviewing. I believe the outcome is no worse on average. So yes, that's my chosen approach.
That's a shame. I found it interesting and thought-provoking. Maybe over-egged (and over-AI'd) but still worth a look.
The article refers several times to the benefits of the game designer and the coder being the same person. I've often felt that this is the only way to build anything impressive, and in fact I'm amazed that corporations with their hierarchical organisation model ever get anything built at all but I suppose you can brute force anything with enough employees.
It does make you wonder if the future of AI-assisted development will look more like the early days of coding, where one single mind can build and deliver a whole piece of software from beginning to end.
> But the thing is? Falling doesn't have to be dangerous
Every time you use a question mark in place of a comma? A kitten dies.
With an em-dash for extra points!
The biggest challenge with pensions is convincing people in their 20s to invest in high risk/high return investments. This is usually the right strategy because of the long time horizon of several decades until they will need to crystallise losses/gains.
However if they see their pension balance fall in a big correction, they can panic and move to less volatile investments, thus reducing their long term gains.
You can theorize all you want but the best way to learn to cope with this is for it to happen to you so it would be great to include it in the simulation!
You're giving a 15% growth rate with zero volatility? That isn't going to teach many important lessons.
How about offering a range of rates with volatility increasing as rate increases. Then they can think about the benefit of guaranteed return vs the benefit of long-term growth, or a combination of both.
I decided to go for Yoto over Tonie because it explicitly encourages "Make Your Own" cards which you can put any MP3 files of your own or RSS links to podcast.
That was true for COVID but be careful not to overgeneralise. People also have historically warned about many things, with many of them never coming true.
In fact, that is probably the reason that people unfortunately have learned not to listen. There's even a fable about it.
People seem to be taking it as given that "someone else preparing the food for you" == "the food is more likely to lead to weight gain".
Why should that be? Is it not possible to order healthy food in? If not this would surprise me as it seems a number of people would be seeking this.
I'm asking as I don't have personal experience.
Nice work. Tip: you're missing an 'l' from Frequenty Asked Questions
Is it not just a question of what you're optimising for? Excluding the outliers (the lazy, incompetent, or geniuses), most can choose what to optimise for:
- free time, low stress, calm life
- fulfillment through delivering functionality
- fulfillment through pride in the craft
- money and status through career progression
- social validation through relationships with coworkers/bosses
I like that you list "100% AI-free" as a selling point!
> Unlike many in his scene, Saunders was not a leftist. He had no time for welfarism or state ownership, which he dismissed as inefficient, yet he also rejected rampant capitalism, which he saw as fundamentally unfair.
Not sure TFA supports your assertion that he was a socialist.
And yet so many people "can afford" £300 pcm but "couldn't afford" a yearly unexpected maintenance bill of £2000. Even though the latter is half the cost. It's inability to financially plan over more than a monthly horizon. I think it's because financial literacy is not taught. Or is it just human nature that it's harder to choose to put £200 aside every month for future possible repairs than to pay a £300 monthly bill you have no choice over.
You're missing the point that the freedom from and freedom to may be weighted differently for each individual.
For instance I lose almost nothing by not having the freedom to carry a weapon (UK) as I have no desire to do so, while gaining a lot from having the freedom to not risk my child being murdered at school.
It's an extreme example but applies to a lesser degree for other freedoms, and I've personally found I often benefit more from freedoms-from than freedoms-to.
I'd love it if no vehicle could exceed 30 mph in town as I gain almost no benefit from being able to do so, while taking on significant risk from others being able to.
There's no obligation to buy a new one. Keep your existing cars on the road or replace them with other low mileage used ones.
I bet repair costs on used are less than depreciatiom + finance costs on new, and there's pleasure to be gained from a retro aesthetic.
Feels pretty legit though. My freedom-from is impacted by other people's freedom-to: by curtailing their freedom, mine is expanded. Sure they won't like it - but I don't like it the other way round either.
I believe it's called Deprivation of Assets if they catch you doing that and they won't play along. Even if you suddenly start buying sports cars you never used to. Pretty Orwellian if you ask me, but then if you want other people's tax to pay for your care I guess gov can set whatever criteria they want to on that.
You have a duplicate word in your prompt
```
If you you are asked
```
The low rates was true. But not the 30 year term. Most mortgages in the UK are fixed for 2-5 years so people are much more exposed to fluctuations in interest rates than in the US.
> At the end of your life, your children get to use your housing wealth for their own housing
would that this were true. In the UK at least, that wealth is often needed to pay for end-of-life care. The government will only pay for care once your own wealth including property wealth has been spent.
"What is the point of feeling emotion X" is a category error. Emotions aren't selected intellectually for their chosen outcome, they are felt.
Are you genuinely arguing that people in 2023 are poorer than they were in 1950? This would be astonishing if true wouldn't it? Hasn't GDP tripled or something since then?
I think it's more likely to be expectation inflation. People in 2023 just wouldn't be satisfied to live the life people were satisfied to live in 1950.
A thought experiment could be:
- There are people that earn 100kpa and people that earn 50kpa
- Both kinds of people think they "need two incomes to live these days"
- Obviously the 100kpa people could ditch a whole income and live at the level of the two 50kpa people -- but they wouldn't choose to, they'd rather have the lifestyle of a 200kpa household
Maybe don't talk incessantly about yourself. But I think being open about your thoughts, feelings, fears and hopes is attractive.
What do you mean by "reactive" here?