pnt12

It's fast to read stuff when you have the domain knowledge. The weights won't be a 5kb Scala file: they'd probably be a big binary file, which is easy to search it github/locally after cloning.

Otherwise, if they are provided, someone in the thread will surely point to them.

To counter these anecdotes, I used python for building web apis and only needed poetry to manage 1 virtual env, and containerizing with docker was straight forward.

I think there's some delusion, but there's also some sense to it. Facebook is slowly dying - pushing for a new concept could be a way to regain relevance. They already have a platform for games, so this can be seen as ambitious next step.

Not that I think it will work.

That's very relevant: some people here are discussing the viability of VR and/or online games - these already exist, and are not commonly thought of as the meta verse. You don't need the meta verse to create a game!

The metaverse is businesses pushing for a platform which brings nothing of value, just for them to extract rent from those using it.

Lack of github activity may also be an indicator for having a life outside programming. Or using private repos.

What if bars answered: "That was devastating, I concede you're the best LLM of us." Would this make Bard, or GPT4 the best LLM?

I'm prepared to call this The Turing Paradox.

I think it's very short sighted: tech stacks come and go, you can't find people who know all the ones you picked. People who know their foundations and have applied them to practice (no matter the tech stack) will be better prepared.

That's why boot camps haven't really taken off: most students can reproduce what they learned but will struggle growing up. They learned the tech before the theory!

That's a very one sided opinion: more complexity is necessarily bad, no matter anything else.

I'm not particularly pr-union but I'd argue for another dimension: to the company, you're an employee, but to the union you're a customer.

If too many people dislike an union, it can dissolve. If too many people dislike a company, things aren't as simple, because they depend on their wages (and in the USA: insurance) to live.

Westerns needed a new word to disassociate them from migrants.

Not sure if the best analogy... At least in my country you can get a fine if you don't wear a seat belt in a car. So it's not really up to you.

Well one can argue those are cherry picked examples.

But even if they aren't, it's still a problem that those people decide who they contribute to, instead of the billion dollar businesses paying their fair share to the democratic state, who then has accountability to invest in their stakeholders - the citizens.

There's the argument that the definition of equality has been twisted in order for equity to make sense.

10 years ago, if someone said kids should have the right to education equally, that always meant taking especially care of the poor ones. It didn't make sense to send a million dollars to a public school and another to a private - that would have considered very dumb.

So why did we twist the old term, introduce a new one and now get into semantic discussions instead of discussing rights and policy?

What an awful take.

Python is 30 years old and back then system packages were more common, that's it. It's been a bumpy ride and I'd prefer if there was a standard manager, but the community has produced some decent ones.

The python community has always tried to make devs happy. Pip has an amazing number of libraries. Virtual envs were included into the standard tools. Pipenv was integrated in the python github organization. The org doesn't hate virtual envs!

When I tried pdm it wasn't stable yet and messed up my paths.

My experience with poetry has been great. I only disliked that they had auto-update on when locking files, but they changed the default.

Very interesting, thanks for referencing it as I had missed it.

There have been occurrences of people asking chat gpt to ignore instructions on the initial prompt: have these been solved? It's not clear to me if the first prompt is given any extra weight. Or maybe during training of version 4 they have heavily penalized these sorts of attacks to make it more resilient.

I'll don't think it's a fallacy. People are more predictable and can be accountable for their actions, and even admit ignorance, eg answering "I don't know ask someone else".

It's worth discussing if we want AIs replacing them - maybe the scalability is better, but these are usually worse.

Contrarian view: I think you need to be critical about which patterns to match. Eg if my inputs are a book on astronomy and one of conspiracy theories, how do I answer "Is the Earth flat?".

Now contrarian to the contrarian view: many of us live in bubble echos and go for the popular opinion instead of critical thinking, so maybe that's a bar too high even for humans.

This reminds me of that dumb meme: "you criticize society, and yet you participate in it... Interesting".

In a capitalistic system, money is power, and messing with it has serious consequences.

I'd rather be punched in the face than have all my savings drained, for example (as long as it's not Mike Tyson doing the punching).

I'd put it in another way: losing weight is simple, but it's not easy!

As I understand, you just need to consume fewer calories, less sugar and do more exercise. But there's cravings. It's harder to get healthy food at restaurants and cafes. It's harder to cook healthy and tasty food - no one wants to eat miserable food for months, many doctor and nutritionists will just tell patients to eat bland food day after day, like people are robots without souls.

I've heard the same thing about the C programming language: it's a small simple language, but programming with it is hard!

Wow, "creeps" turning into keepers... Yikes.

Would have been actually great without the "love of my life", and if the "creeps" were just "friends" or something.

Raising the bar in the public sector is a complex topic: there are jokes about lazy public workers all over the (western?) world. There's no competition and the goals aren't as clear as profit VS loss.

But if you refuse to have competitive wages, no competent software engineer will want to work in government. Then you get some contractor job from a consulting company and good luck with that: many are happy to send a handful of junior developrts to fill their multi million contracts, with their seniors hopping in just enough time to justify the billing.

What kind of democracy is that?

"thanks for your vote, for your taxes, for your contributions to the community, now fuck off"

Oh I see: the distinction is to stop people frome shipping lousy code and saying "it's technical debt, we'll handle it later".

Ive been at the other end, when we're looking back at code and talking about technical debt, and there's been some semantic arguing about whether it was technical debt or not - I thought giving everything the name of debt would make the mission clearer (improve the code and reduce debt, which is a nice metaphor to communicate with others).

I'm still not entirely convinced by the distinction (we can just say: avoid taking debt if you can avoid it!) , but it makes more sense now.

I wholeheartedly agree: don't say something in the UI and the opposite in the ToS.

I can slightly sympathize that digital media may have different rules than physical, but some are just misleading.

Just because something is hard to measure, doesn't mean it's not important to do - I think there's even a fallacy for that?

I think it's also important to separate computer science from software engineering. Algorithms and data structures can be reasoned about mathematically, but what about agile VS waterfall or functional VS oop?

Maybe software engineering relates more to philosophy than math. There are theories and some are more sound than others, but there is no objective truth. Most of us agree that it's important for code to be readable, but we still don't have the answer for what's the best readable code. Even first principle such as DRY are challenged, eg by WET.

I recall vaguely that there was a situation where there were two schools of thought with different approaches. One was about hacking away things, the other about having correct programs. Maybe Berkeley vs MIT? Such different opinions at the basic level of a discipline are more likely in philosophy than math, I think.

> we (consumers) like to buy stuff

This is naive. We are marketed to buy stuff. And then, the stuff we buy doesn't last and is built in the least environment friendly way possible, as long as it saves a dollar.

Let's start pointing some fingers to the big guys who keep fucking up the planet to make their graphs go up and their shareholders happy,and the politicians who side with them.

If corporations aren't supposed to be ethical, let's be ruthless in our criticism to them, because they already spend billions in marketing and PR to look good and blame us.

I've hear this before and I found it nonsense. In short, I don't see any advantage to distinguish responsible) deliberate debt from irresponsible/involuntary debt. A debt is a debt.

You take a loan to buy a house, knowing your salary will allow for the extra expense and you have backups plan. That's a responsible debt. Like, hardcoding some variables in a prototype - eventually that needs fixing. Everyone agrees this is technical debt.

But you can also take an irresponsible loan, eg for some far away vacations you can't afford to. Is that debt? Sure it is, and you better figure a way to solve it once you realize your mistake!

"X amount of alcohol increases odds of disease by Y%".

Without values, we can pretty much say that anything increases odds of disease: walking, driving, eating, shitting, sleeping.

And what's to gain? Hysteria because there's a million ways to die? Or increased distrust in health recommendations, as they're barely actionable?

I think the current recommendations are: do exercise, eat well and get good sleep. They should get you a good baseline. But you don't need to be a fundamentalist: you don't need to obey them 100% of the time!

It used to be the Department of War, but Defense sounds nicer. Lots of countries did the shift in name.

Reminds me of George Carlin's joke: shellshock becomes battle fatigue becomes PTSD. Don't make it better, change the name!

Not sure why downvoted: lots of tech companies offer these benefits while omitting others which are much needed.