patrickmay

Exactly. Hyrum's Law should always be paired with Postel's Law: Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.

You are a monster. I would like to buy you a beer.

This is a technical problem, not a legal one. The solution is for browsers to provide users with the ability to limit the information being sent. There's no need for the vast majority of websites to know my OS, number of CPUs, screen or window size, or most of the other fingerprinting metrics.

"The mind is for having ideas, not holding them." -- David Allen, author of Getting Things Done.

Here you go: https://tftools.com/en-us/collections/martinez-hammers

(I'm not a customer or an owner.)

Maybe it's my Lisp background, where it's arguably easier, but I find myself immediately thinking "Eliminate that repetition."

That's an interesting approach. You still have to review all the changes to make sure they're correct and that the code is maintainable, though. I could see this being a net savings on a legacy code base or a brand new system still in the "sketching" phase.

> [LLMs] save me a ton of time doing either boilerplate work

I hear this frequently from LLM aficionados. I have a couple of questions about it:

1) If there is so much boilerplate that it takes a significant amount of coding time, why haven't you invested in abstracting it away?

2) The time spent actually writing code is not typically the bottleneck in implementing a system. How much do you really save over the development lifecycle when you have to review the LLM output in any case?

You've just identified the next unicorn: AAA for bikes.

I hear a lot of people talk about LLMs writing the "boilerplate" and wonder why they haven't abstracted that away in the first place.

Maybe my brain has been permanently altered by hacking Lisp.

I would like to read the article you describe.

> some backwards part of the world like Paris.

This alone earns my upvote.

[O]rganizations which design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.

— Melvin E. Conway, How Do Committees Invent?

When clergy take psilocybin . . . God sees them?

Maybe neither should. The problem is the power existing in the first place, waiting around for someone like Trump.

That's one every five weeks. Middlemarch is roughly 900 pages. Assuming one reads five evenings a week, that's 36 pages per sitting. Each page is roughly 300 words. An average reading speed is about 250 words per minute; let's knock that down to 200 for denser works like those discussed. That's 54 minutes of reading per day.

Hardly a huge time commitment, especially as a way to decompress from the day.

I worked on a team where a new hire from a prestigious school told his manager "That work is boring and mundane and I'm not going to do it."

He didn't last long.

Helicopters typically contain people, drones do not.

I used to do technical sales and I couldn't agree more. Everyone wants to be part of a compelling story.

"Writing is nature's way of letting you know how sloppy your thinking is." -- Leslie Lamport

Writing is an essential skill.

ACME aside, I love the description of how the OP iterated to a solution via a combination of implementing simple functions and cussing. That is a beautiful demonstration of what it means to be an old school hacker.

If AI regularly uses the Oxford Comma, it can't be all bad.

> I’d argue that a well-written email is one that doesn’t require a summary.

I strongly agree. This echoes the cartoon about using LLMs to write and then summarize emails (https://marketoonist.com/2023/03/ai-written-ai-read.html).

If someone doesn't care enough about my time to compose a well-written email, with a tl;dr at the top if necessary, then I see no reason to care about what they've generated.

Still a better love story than Twilight.

I see no reason to trust the current government, nor any of the previous ones in my lifetime.

But is it EXACTLY a million to one chance?

If an LLM is better at writing than you are, you should work on improving your writing.

This is especially true for students.

It also explicitly requires the parties and candidates to think beyond the current election cycle. That behavior is not in evidence for at least one major party in the U.S.

A candidate's personal expectation of costs must also be factored in. When a candidate faces criminal charges (to pick an example totally out of the blue) if they lose but can eliminate those if they win, the calculus changes for them.

There aren't just two choices. My neighbor on one side voted for Trump, the one down the street voted for Harris, and I voted for Oliver.

The problem is the concentration of federal power generally and executive power specifically in this administration. Decrease the size and scope of government, particularly at the national level, and there's a lot less to argue about.

There is no justification for ever creating an account like that. The only purpose is nefarious.