RHSeeger

And _then_ it became so much more hostile to users - and lost a lot of what made it so wonderful. It became very common that asking a new, good question would be marked as a duplicate because there was something it wasn't a duplicate of.

But people use it to store all information about some games - effectively replacing a wiki. And it is AWFUL for that. Everything about Discord makes it bad for that

- Can't be found in search engines

- Abysmal search functionality

- Abysmal discoverability

And the person that wrote the code is expected to be the review.

Unless it's an automated pipeline that fixes the things found - I'm not a fan of that unless it's made VERY clear the LLM needs to be VERY sure it's right. And even then, I'd prefer it go through a human to decide which things are valid, then send them off to be fixed.

I don't feel the need to make someone else read the LLM output first just to do an inferior job than what I would do (since I know the code and can more easily identify what is valid vs what isn't).

- Its favorite color is blue. The ball is its

- Her favorite color is blue. The ball is hers

Which - just adds to the inconsistency.

This is a false comparison. Agents cannot solve all the technical problems, so the entire statement falls apart.

Passkeys have benefits - but they also have problems. Many people just don't think the benefits are worth the problems. And many people are afraid that sites will just stop accepting passwords in favor of passkeys, leaving people worse off.

That completely overlooks some things

- Most people are _not_ that determined and need something to help them stay focused and committed to your goals.

- Learning the material is only one part - having someone guide you through _what_ to learn is very beneficial

- Taking time off life (work, etc) in order to do that learning isn't that easy. "Going to college" is a lot easier to explain/fund then "taking some me time for 3 years"

And when you have a backhoe, you can skip a lot of those things, too. It's bad, sure.. but so is skipping a lot of the important parts when using AI.

I'll admit that this doesn't _need_ to be the result of maliciousness.

But that means the possible explanations are maliciousness or incompetency.

I don't know that we want people with _either_ of those traits in the positions they are in.

> You can't build an apartment complex here, because our water/sewer system is already over capacity

/ignores that statement and builds the apartment complex because "omg, we need more housing" arguments are used to not pay attention to consequences

/water and sewer system can't keep up and all kinds of expensive problems occur

There are multiple ways to read this

1. They are not making models with the intent that those models act in ways that are evil

2. They are not making models with the intent that those models act in ways that are evil - But the way they are making the models results in the models acting in ways that are evil

3. They want to act evilly and making the models is a way to do that

4. The way they are making the models is an act of evil (this isn't an interpretation of the sentence, just kind of closing the grouping of situations)

I would argue that

- 1 & 3 are very likely not true

- 2 & 4 are entirely reasonable interpretations of the situation

If you act in a way to bring benefit to yourself with the result of considerable harm to others, especially if it's clear you just don't care if others are harmed - then that's a sign you're probably a bad person.

If you equip someone with the tools to do harm and then tell it to accomplish a goal "by any means necessary", especially someone you KNOW has no real concept of ethical behavior... then you are telling it that it is acceptable to steal, kill, or whatever else. I honestly cannot how it can be seen any other way.

If it was a crime boss telling their enforcer "by any means necessary", we would all know exactly what that means. And we should all know what it means here, too.

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