nevertoolate

- how to prove that humans can argue endlessly like an llm?

- ragebait them by saying AIs don’t think

- …

I do. I’ve researched the optimal distance for a smallish tv screen (which fits between the studio monitor stand). I move the tv closer when watching a film, it stands on hacked together wooden box like thing which has some yoga tools and film magazines in it - it has wheels. Crazy stuff. There is a flipchart like drawing of my daughter covering the tv normally which we flip when watching films.

I also hear that middle management is being cut from all companies. Some kind of management is necessary though, no? Otherwise people will get misaligned an all that. I'm not sure what is the point of the article. I guess a good manager doesn't need a bullet list to be able to function so why this person is writing a new one?

Total nitpick - you say list is commonly understood to be linearly iterated. I’d expect a list to refer to an ordered sequence - default implementation of access and mutation varies wildly between languages. E.g. java code usually defaults to ArrayList, lisps to cons cells, C++ doubly linked list, etc.

Sql has “tuples” for the rows of a result-set which are neither tuples nor lists in the “general sense” and are of a “record” type - names with values.

So what is a list? Depends on the context.

Might be possible but then you lose aphantasia :)

You are saying if promotion makes a person happy it justifies to spend a lot of resources on getting it even if it is harmful for the world (based on unstated ethical framework). GP says it is invalid resource usage - waste of human capital. I think he is hating on the game not the playa (based on unstated ethical framework)

I suspect that much more people can do it than unable to do it (aphantasia)

I didn’t know people see things in the real world, like an imaginary cat until I had a dream where I could imagine something purposefully. I woke up immediately, thrown out from the dream image.

I told my wife proudly that I could see something in my dream I wanted to. She told me she can imagine ANYTHING ANYWHERE ANYTIME (painter)

My question is: can you see the cat on the table? If not, sorry pal.

What is the approach? Do you target a subset of sql which you compile onto or you have some runtime dynamic dispatch thing and fight for code reuse with the magic haskell tools?

I think I understand this, possibly nice for huge client x feature matrix. I don’t have XP in the setup where there is a big separate backend team. In my head there is an alternative implementation: have a separate routing layer (coauthored by backend and frontend). Backend responsibility ends with the service layer. There has to be some domain contract implemented somewhere, question is it is simpler to cut down from a tree or build something on top of components.

Question is: do you need that flexibility if you have the backend for frontend? Can you design such a flexible api which makes it possible to iterate faster? If not, you just pay, in the best case, a constant overhead, or worst case, exponential overhead for each request! If you need to spend time optimizing because you have monitoring for slow queries or downtime caused by never terminating queries than most likely you’ve already eaten implementation speed advantage - if it exists at all in the first place.

"I got you, babe" loops

Perfect words, rehearsed embrace—

No one's really there

I'm not sure what you mean by

> Every project needs a varying ratio of each component and stacking all forms in a single website in the same format is very ineffective

I think Diátaxis _is_ mostly a conceptual framework. It helps me tremendously, totally implementation agnostic. From the site itself:

> Diátaxis strongly prescribes a structure, but whatever the state of your existing documentation - even if it’s a complete mess by any standards - it’s always possible to improve it, iteratively.

You never design a solution which needs multiple architectural components which _support_ the feature? I do, and would make little sense to merge them as separate PRs most of the time as that would mean sometimes tests written on the inappropriate level, also a lot more coordination and needs a lot more elaborate description then just explain how the set of components work in tandem to provide the user value.

it is not a philosophical debate against the auto-squash. It is just auto-squash deletes potentially useful data automatically and provides zero benefit? Or what is the benefit?

1. pr message doesn't contain _all_ intent behind each change while the commit did cover the intent behind a technical decision. would you put everything in the pr message? why? it will just be a misleading messy comment for unrelated architectural components.

2. you branch from a wip branch - why? just. - now when the original branch is merged you can't rebase as github/lab messed up the parents.

3. interactive rebase before merge works fine for the wip wip wip style coding. But honestly wip wip wip style happens on bad days, not on days where you are executing a plan.

4. most importantly: you can read the pr message stuff if you filter on merge commits, but if you auto-squash you lose information.

Bacteria entering bloodstream is quite common it seems, gut is not perfectly sealed and less sealed because of bad lifestyle choices. I think the article points out that treating cholesterol doesn’t treat the root cause and possibly! ineffective in itself to lower heart disease risk as something else is causing direct health threatening problems.

Target market is a hobby chef nerd’s mom :)

Otoh: this is NOT how a person cuts with a knife! Kills credibility of the whole complicated measurement with the robot. Just ask a chef to cut on a scale. You will be surprised. People can cut with semi-dull knife by pulling the knife towards their body not pushing down towards the cutting surface.

What is your point? One of education’s primary goals is / were to help learning to enjoy the “right” things. Football field or library are not “good” in themselves, people learn to enjoy reading books and playing football via guidance.

I talked with an AI friend to find patterns in this comment thread. I'd like to comment it back here:

Crisis response analysis of these comments reveals three patterns:

Denial (24%): "Study is BS" / "It's just offshoring" - dismisses AI impact without examining evidence

Fear/Catastrophizing (24%): "Feudalism incoming" / "End of democracy" - accepts premise, jumps to apocalyptic scenarios

Analytical (39%): Questions methodology, notes sample bias, considers alternative explanations, asks for clarification

Key finding: Nearly half the responses (48%) are emotional rather than evidence-based. The most upvoted and substantive comments come from the analytical category, which actually engages with the study's limitations rather than just reacting to the headline.

The Stanford study itself has significant methodological issues (ADP represents only ~15% of workforce, multiple sample restrictions, correlation≠causation), but you'd miss that if you only read the emotional responses.

edit: formatting

Caching is straw-man. Complexity tends to be higher to implement a graphql backend than for e.g. type-spec => openapi backend. For the simple case the simpler solution wins imo. For the complex case it can be a toss-up, but it seems that performance and security can be a big deal-breaker for graphql, so maybe only big enterprises can afford to go down that route.

I'm not sure what you mean by the react analogy, react seems to be far more popular than graphql in their respective areas.

10x means to me that i can finish a month of work in max 2 days and go cloud watching. What does it mean for you?

This is a good idea. Otoh I have mixed results, claude code easily convinces themselves to retry failed ides in a loop

I think I understand what you mean by 2.7% (small number) but what % and + means over the domain of intelligence - the whole problem is that we can't measure it . And the other issues is that we have huge problem managing intelligent people to work together at all, will it be any easier with non-people?

I think it was not designed for your use case. It is conveniently running in the browser but not a collection of links to html pages. The people quarreling in this comment section seemingly ignore that life is complex, web browsers are complex, web development is complex. Maybe you should think about linear as a desktop app and call it a day :)

Your point is: ai is the future and for some it is bad news and they dismiss the possibility of this future. My question is: who will control this ai? The folk who can’t do the work without ai or the ones who can? Who would you hire?

I was surprised that after “closer to god” comes the “build the next kubernetes”. How do you connect these two things?

E.g. I’ve found the “closer to god” in my yoga practice. And how I now realize that through words I can’t connect that much as through practice (e.g. just eating my lunch being fully present). I still think I can help through my software product building skills, but also know that if I can help people find a more joyful life / build a less painful body is closer to my purpose than “only” building software.

Yes

Issue is if product people will do the “coding” and you have to fix it is miserable

It sounds too good to be true. Why do you think llm is better in coding then in how education software should be designed?

I’m not sure if you have read my question, but I can tell you think I don’t know what is happening in with the llm scene. I’m aware, late? into the game, doing my own experiments. I asked a specific question - have spent ~100 hours in claude chat already implementing production features, prototypes and scripts. Anyways. :)