CivBase

I understand the sentiment but I also think the modern electrical grid is one of the most impressive and valuable things man has created and I'd hate to see us give up on it.

Surely economic forces will overcome political ones eventually, right?

How is it not the same?

Seems like a perfectly good response to me.

This really feels like jumping the shark. But I'll admit I've run into cases where this would have been handy. I wonder if it'll be worth all the inevitable edge cases and footguns it'll create.

> But yes, the coding agents will not magically make everything maintainable if you don't tell them to.

You say that like adding "Make it maintainable." to your prompts solves the problem. But the reality is we only have weak metrics for measuring maintainability. For example, you can trivially optimize for Cyclomatic complexity by blowing away abstractions and duplicating code everywhere. That doesn't make the code better. Cyclomatic complexity is a tool that has to be applied judiciously.

That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use AI to generate code. But it does mean if you want your project to scale, you're still going to need a lot of developer involvement at the code level to ensure the code remains maintainable so that future developers can build on top of it. AI is not like compilers, which allow developers to build complex solutions without being proficient at the next level down (assembly).

This is exactly why I switched to Aurora. I couldn't even install Balatro from the Play Store.

I believe copyright timeframes have gotten WAY out of hand and need to be reigned in to something more sensible, but I still think it's a valuable concept and don't want to see it abolished.

Patents on the other hand have become a total joke and I'd be happy to see them gone.

I don't disagree. But if you're in that position, surely you'd be better off emptying the cache and disabling it?

A 10% reduction in cache size in exchange for a 4% slowdown doesn't seem obviously worthwhile to me, especially when it comes at an increase in complexity.

It's "homework" in the sense that it is not bound to the class. It is not due during class and if you can't finish it in class, you'll have to complete it out of class.

And I mean setting aside some time during the class itself, not a separate "study hall" period. Obviously class time is precious, so I don't expect there to always be enough in-class time to finish assignments. But even having a little in-class time for students to get started - and when the teacher is available for help those in need - would go a long way towards encouraging students to do the work themselves and not cheat.

And of course part of my strategy is to make "homework" shorter (5-15 min). That should also reduce the temptation to cheat and increase the likelihood students can even complete them in class.

It's not necessarily useless. If you make assignments short, provide some time in school to work on it, and do not allow students to use devices with access to general-purpose "AI", then there is a good chance most students will do the work like they're supposed to. Some will still cheat, but it's foolish to reorganize everything around the few who stubbornly refuse to learn.

What you describe is a goal we should absolutely strive for - and one we are clearly falling short of. At the same time it's foolish to describe the US as being on the opposite side of the spectrum. I dare say it's even dangerous, as it encourages a sense of hopelessness and disregard for laws and civility.

You put way too much faith in kids' desire to learn and their ability to make responsible choices.

> Homework should be optional material for self study, evaluated by teachers if you choose to do it but never forced.

My wife is a teacher and her school does this. The result is that nobody does homework. The kids who need the extra practice don't get it and they fall into a spiral of failure and apathy. This is especially bad for subjects like math that build on themselves.

IMO the better solution is to require and grade shorter homework and provide students with optional, supplementary assignments that can be used to make up for missed credit on homework for the same material. That way students who grasp the material quickly can demonstrate and move on while others who need practice are naturally encouraged to get it without being permanently punished for struggling initially.

Git gets you 90% of the way there. Sounds like you just want a decentralized review solution to go with it.

Good. Git is a decentralized version control solution. It's built for this. The centralization around GitHub was beneficial for the initial proliferation of Git, but has long since become a net negative. The "community" you speak of was never bound to GitHub. Better alternatives have emerged and for many it's time to move to greener pastures.

If you're still using Facebook, it's because you're required to or you're the kind of person who won't be fazed by this.

You are comparing individual human observation with an automated surveillance network. Their capabilities are vastly different. It's like comparing a taser with an M1 Abrams tank.

Why on earth would I go to a game store to buy a code?

It guarantees a minimum balance of corn and rye in the resulting blend. If you have a whiskey that you know has an appropriate mash bill (e.g. Rittenhouse BiB) then you could be boring and just use that. But there's also more to a whiskey than its mash bill. Blending different kinds can yield new and interesting flavors. And after all isn't that what cocktails are all about?

> Why was there so much stress, overwork and burnout even before AI started churning out 5000-line PRs?

Programming used to be a rare skill. Not so much now. In fact, it hasn't been for well over a decade.

My current employer started aggressively hiring for programmers in India in the early 2010s. They get paid a fraction of what our software engineers do in the US. There are many talented engineers in India, and those who get hired by us either find a way to come to the US for an enormous pay increase, or use us as a stepping stone to quickly find better work. And my employer is seemingly fine with this. They expect these cheap employees to do programming, not engineering.

Programming may not necessarily be easy, but it is cheap. It has become a relatively common skill, driving down its market value. A lot of tech companies were slow to figure this out because times were good, interest was low, and investment was flowing.

AI is waking people up to a truth that has been around for a while now.

The downward spiral continues.

> People really did not like Trump they just didn't like incumbents more.

In 2016 Trump got 63M votes. Clinton got 66M.

In 2020 Trump got 74M votes. Biden got 81M.

In 2024 Trump got 77M votes. Harris got 75M.

Trump's popularity increased with each election. Turnout for Harris was definitely lower than the previous election, but the dip was not exceptional. Trump won because of his popularity - not despite it.

Sentiments like this are why things will not improve. Neither side needs to practice any introspection because they're the good side and when the bad side wins it's just unavoidable because voters are dumb. Keep doubling down. Surely that will make things better.

That's what I said?

Trump 1 was so bad, people showed up in droves to vote for anything else. That's how we ended up with a dimensia president.

Biden was so bad, people showed up in droves to vote for anything else. That's how we ended up in a war with Iran.

Trump 2 is so bad, people will show up in droves to vote for anything else. The downward spiral continues.

I even wonder how much of the 1/3 who voted for him now regret it.

I don't understand the water usage fears. I'm much more concerned with electricity usage.

> Or was it just some companies were overvalued?

That's what a bubble is.

Calling AI a "bubble" is not calling it useless or a fad. It's just pointing out that companies in the sector are overvalued. And it's important to recognize and correct bubbles quickly because the bigger the pop, the worse the overall economic damage to everyone.

Coding litterally is cheap. We outsource it for wages that you'd expect of a bottom-level fast food employee. We've been doing that for many years.

It doesn't take a 4 year education to learn how to use loops, functions, and basic data structures. Most of you could probably code by the end of your fresan year of college. Many probably learned at least some coding before college.

I've learned plenty since those days. I can code much faster now than I used to - in the same way an accountant is probably faster at mental math than they once were. But an accountant's value isn't in how fast they can crunch numbers. In the same way, a software engineer's value isn't in how fast they can code.

I'd say "coding" has been solved, but that was never the bottleneck.

Coding is cheap. It has been for a long time. Ten years ago my company was outsorcing all its coding to the cheapest people they could find in India. But most of these people can't solve problems. They can't even identify problems, much less design solutions.

Code is a liability. You want as little as you can to solve the problems you actually have. That takes an engineer. Maybe AI will get there someday, but it certainly isn't today.

Engineers can certainly use AI to generate code when they need it... but in my experience I don't need much code to do my job, so AI coding doesn't help me much. My personal experience is that by the time I've reviewed the output and corrected the mistakes, I may as well have written it myself.