rmwaite

To be fair, they were just sharing their experience. I don’t recall them saying anything close to your interpretation.

JavaScript has its share of wtfs, so I wonder how much of it is which one someone experienced during some formative window in their learning.

Did you encounter JS first?

I find it interesting that you can’t lie to the police but the police can (and do) lie to you. Why?

That’s just an email signature, configurable (or removable, if you prefer) by the user. This is completely different, in my opinion.

On iOS, if you swipe control center down and then back up but don’t lift your finger, the screenshot will not have the logo. I do this with Twitter so my screenshots don’t have the X logo.

I think “staggering” is a pretty accurate way of putting it if blocking ads is in the same ballpark as running a AAA game on max settings.

Instructions are data

I think the point is that worse is better. There is incredible power in a standard (mostly) predictable platform, even if it could be done better.

I mean it kinda does.

> Once you irrigate a field, that water is gone.

This doesn't seem true to me, in the sense that anything is truly "gone". The water doesn't cease to exist or is converted to anything other than water. It just moves.

Agree completely about the time thing. Indeed, every time I’ve fallen into the trap of somehow believing I’ve moved “past” the time sink it inevitably has bitten me down the road when something breaks or I learn about some maintenance task I should have been doing but didn’t even know existed.

More than anything, I’ve come to admire those who learn how to do this stuff consistently because it is hard.

I remember being the big innovation over svn being merging. There were others things, obviously, but the distributed model + easy merges is what I remember.

Any language of Python’s size and popularity will be a mess, the only difference is what parts of it.

What I find fascinating about LLMs is that a lot of their failures seem strikingly similar to the failures that humans struggle with. I’m not sure what this “means” but I think it’s interesting that we can theoretically fix these failures for LLMs but for humans it is much harder. You pretty much need to educate / indoctrinate people for their entire lives and even then it’s messy and unpredictable and prone to failure—just like LLMs.

I don't think this is something to laugh at. Whether or not you think it's necessary or a proper method of punishment, it isn't funny.

This matches me experience as well. Some of my earliest rsync experiences were with the Cygwin version and I can remember scratching my head and wondering why people raved about this tool that ran so slowly. Imagine my surprise when I tried it on Linux. Night and day!

In my case, once I set the limit to 0 minutes and refreshed the home tab I don't see Shorts recommendations at all. There is still a Shorts tab at the bottom that tells me I have no remaining time (and allows me to trivially override it, sigh). But otherwise this seems to have cleaned up the "feed" that I see in the app of anything Shorts related (for now, at least).

Relevant: https://sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html

IP addresses were always meant to be globally reachable. Of course, NAT has corrupted this - which is why NAT is a scourge.

I think AI can add a lot of functionality but on the margins. Making things “work better”. I think AI as a focal point—in that it is The feature is a mistake for most things. But making code completion work better or suggestions more accurate? Things that are largely invisible UI-wise.

I’ve always seen the hubris as an essential component of doing things “you didn’t know you couldn’t do.” A lot of great ideas are discounted as impossible and it takes hubris to fly in the face of that perceived impossibility. I reckon most of the time it doesn’t work out and the pessimism was warranted—but those times it does work out make up for it.

To be honest, if you’re using a tool that stores things as trees and blobs and almost every part of its functionality is influenced by that fact, then you just need to understand trees and blobs. This is like trying to teach someone how to interact with the file system and they are like “whoa whoa whoa, directories? Files? I don’t have time to understand this, I just want to organize my documents.” Actually I take that back, it isn’t /like/ that, it is /exactly/ that.

Thanks for this, I can’t believe this never occurred to me to try to do.

If you read carefully you will see that they never said AI has a theory of mind.

Then what do we do? lol.

Personally, I think you need to chill. He wasn’t “attacking” it, he was just commenting and includes his interpretation about it being from AI. Why don’t YOU just focus on the primary point of his comments instead of latching onto the AI part—or is it okay when you do it?

Exactly. I mean, if you asked people how probable the current LLMs would be (warts and all) 20 years ago I think there would have been a similar cynicism.

“You can’t tell people anything” I read this on a blog article a long time ago and I’m constantly reminded of it. This gives me that same feeling where someone is attempting to give some insight into their POV (precisely /because/ it’s alien to so many) and the responses (well, some of them) miss this point entirely.

I dunno, usually when I eat chocolate it makes me want to eat more chocolate. What is the mechanism for this?

My problem with takes like this is it presumes a level of understanding of intelligence in general that we simply do not have. We do not understand consciousness at all, much less consciousness that exhibits human intelligence. How are we to know what the exact conditions are that result in human-like intelligence? You’re assuming that there isn’t some emergent phenomenon that LLMs could very well achieve, but have not yet.