RHSeeger

And it shares a lot of the same metaprogramming that Lisps have - more so than the vast majority of other languages.

This is a strong signal that you're looking at different things than a lot of people doing code reviews are.

- Why are you using this api for this instead of this other one? We use the other one because it avoids a specific issue.

- Your code isn't following the same patterns that we use in these places. It should be using the same patterns so that it's more obvious to anyone else that works on it

- The name you gave this function/class/whatever doesn't accurately represent what it is for

These are the kinds of things that are generally noticeable during a code review, and can make a big difference later on. And they're generally not going to be identified during standups and/or design.

Pairing is an option, since it is (effectively) code review _while_ writing the code (with a certain amount of blinders on, so not quite as effective). That being said, I hate pairing, so it's certainly not on my recommendation list.

If the constitution doesn't take away a right from you specifically, then you have that right.

When every passkey interaction is a different variety of user interaction nightmare, it's not very convincing that it's a good idea in the first place

It _is_ true that it's more secure when even the people that the passkey was created for can't use it.

> Styles can be applied mechanically with linters and formatters, so as much as any codebase written by multiple people.

I'm talking more of a higher level than this - more of coding/design patterns that are common for the team.

And neither one of those statements is very convincing to me.

- is it understandable

- is it maintainable

- how much work is adding new features

- is it written in a way that adding new features means rewriting a lot of it

- is it written in a consistent style

- and lots of other things

I use AI to write a lot of my code, but the only time it's clearly "better" than a competent human is for one-off things.

That being said - AI + human is, without any doubt in my mind, better than either one alone.

- Is it possible to create an actual, self-aware AI with the technology we have? And by "self aware", all I mean is one that is indistinguishable from "self aware" (it acts like it is)

- If so, is it possible to get from <here> (where we are now) to <there> (building such and AI) based on incremental steps - ones that can be tried, tested, verified, and further acted on

- If the goal of an LLM is one that could be achieved by creating such an AI - is it possible it will do so? Could we give it a prompt and, given enough time and resources, it created Skynet?

It would be doing so without intent or self awareness. Just "the next most likely thing to try to achieve the assigned goal is <X>", over and over.

I use this type of point all the time, and every time to blank stares.

Me> The Flock surveillance network is bad - it is an invasion of privacy and gives way too much power to people that should not have that power. It _can_ be used to solve crimes, and does. But so could not allowing anyone out of their house without a permit. But that, too, would be stupid and harm society

Them> _blank stare_ But.. it saved a child once.

> In what universe does using encryption to evade the government function as a survival strategy?

Could be read as either

- It functions as a full and complete survival strategy

or

- One of it's functions is as a survival strategy

The former is saying it's all that is needed, the later is saying it's something that can be used in that way (but not saying it's enough). Kind of like saying that food is a human necessity vs saying it is _the_ human necessity.

I never looked before today, but always thought it was the other way around.

> That's unlikely to bring someone out of a ketosis state, which requires a daily intake of < 15--30g

Also neat to know.

I only know the impact that a Dunks coffee (with cream) has on my blood sugar (and how much insulin I need to take to counteract it). So this has been a learning experience for me. Thanks

Paying more attention to your blood sugar and acting reasonably to keep it in check isn't giving anyone heart attacks.

From the AI

> The concern was not that lower glucose is inherently bad. Rather, pushing blood sugar down rapidly and very tightly—especially with insulin and multiple glucose-lowering drugs—caused more episodes of hypoglycemia, weight gain, and treatment complexity. Severe low blood sugar can trigger abnormal heart rhythms and other cardiovascular stress. The intensive-treatment arm was stopped early after about 3.5 years because it had a higher death rate, although the exact mechanism was not definitively established.