randusername

I think "proactivity" is the better word here.

Some people playfully embrace new ways of doing things and others need to be shown. AI is still too open-ended for some.

I think you're right about increasing social and economic differences, though. I remember reading that poverty erodes agency and self-advocacy over time. If the previous paradigm isn't working well for you, you aren't necessarily well-positioned to benefit from the new one. And maybe severely disadvantaged.

We use a secondhand university projector and a pull-down projection screen.

It's not great for daytime viewing and there's some friction setting it up, but we appreciate that. It's a dedicated movie-night appliance, not something we have on in the background all the time.

Okay, devil's advocate:

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War (2020) cost over $700 million to make.

I can't imagine anyone qualified to run billion dollar projects has much time for any interests other than running billion dollar projects.

These projects wouldn't be sustainable without an audience of gamers rewarding it with purchases and microtransactions.

> the big wins come from specialists learning to code as the vanguard, then a few engineers taking over for production

The best places to work are ones with high mutual respect between the 'R' and 'D' of R&D. When either camp dismisses the value of the other and everyone stops giving a little to make the handoff easier it just makes everyone miserable.

I think Brooks' ideas of conceptual integrity or the surgical team are more interesting in the context of AI than the man-month.

Certain projects will really benefit from one person being able to more fully impose their vision for longer.

I disagree with DHH on a lot, but he's definitely going an interesting place with Omarchy because he can do so much "himself".

We should distinguish between 1:many advice and 1:1 advice.

An interviewer is really asking "how do you recommend people replicate your success?" which grounds the response in the hard lessons that person learned on their own journey.

Personalized advice can be equally useless, but if that person really understands you and your situation you might be surprised how specific and valuable good objective feedback can be.

I see comments on posts like this complaining that Apple has the money to make software as high-quality as their hardware so they must be dysfunctional.

I'm not sure it's so easy. I think you have to compromise on hardware or software and Apple makes a choice.

My whole career in embedded devices, software is always under schedule pressure from hardware. Not because hardware is sloppy or evil, but because doing new things is hard and hardware has deadlines that software doesn't.

Like, I think the lessons are that all the money in the world still can't buy you time and even Apple can't keep a lid on feature creep.

It takes an uncommon breadth of perspective and depth of intellectual humility to contradict evidence it is your job to collect and interpret.

Sometimes the trends of tomorrow just aren't in the data of today.

What modeler in the late 19th century, when children were still economic assets on farms and in factories, could have predicted they would become extraordinary economic liabilities?

Don't let any news outlet convince you the story of humanity is exclusively one of war, pestilence, exploitation, and ignorance when we also find time to engineer meat cannons and give them silly names

Some cars, if you have to ask what it costs, you can't afford it.

Other cars, if you have to ask where the government will allow you to drive it, you can't afford it.

The value of moving dirt is that someone paid for a hole. They don't care how it was made.

The value of written communication is in whether people decide to read it. There is nothing controversial about readers rejecting content they perceive is low-effort.

Lots of programmers match the right language to the right job, I think the zen of C++ is embracing the ugly as a feature; there are so many subsets of that language you never have to leave it.

I have to say the messaging around passkeys is bad. So many providers show modals with big friendly lock logos superimposed on a smartphone to announce the change without offering any explanation about why the change is happening, why the change is happening now, or how the technology works.

I don't know when it started, I don't know who is to blame, but we've definitely arrived at a conceptualization of "the user" that is passive, uncurious, and incapable of being talked to like an adult.

I see this style of framing a lot and it always seems like turtles all the way down to me:

- Smart people recognize that some people are stupid

- No, real smart people recognize that behaviors are stupid, not people

- No, real smart people don't label others, including calling themselves smart, based on a small sample of observed behaviors. They leave the dichotomy behind.

- Wait, you still called yourself smart...?

- You are all wrong, all labels are generally meaningless and unhelpful in describing dynamic people in a dynamic world, though let's not be dogmatic about it, sometimes a dolt is a dolt and a genius is a genius

Adam Omary is a research scholar for the libertarian-leaning Cato institute [0].

While centering individual responsibility and calling out the weird dynamic where people unnecessarily embrace a personal narrative previously associated with debilitating conditions to feel a sense of belonging is refreshing, this is a heavy lift.

[0]: https://www.cato.org/people/adam-omary

Cost is the exception to how LLM learning curves have dropped off and in some ways rewarded late adopters. (e.g. prompt engineering is hardly worth the bother when the models now think so hard about user intent)

It continues to be an uphill battle to help people at $DAYJOB understand that the relationship between turns and cost is nonlinear. And many still don't understand the idea of a system prompt, that they can control how chatty all responses are.

Length is inevitable

- the algorithm rewards it

- livelihood is parasocial community that is helped by length

- creatives seek challenges; ambition becomes length

Can you elaborate?

There's a lot of awkward folded her arms beneath her breasts for sure but I never understood this criticism. Some female characters were trope-y, but so were many of the male characters.

I went in hearing about controversy online and guess I ended feeling like I'm miscalibrated from fantasy that is so much worse.

I agree, but I'm curious if anyone has thoughts on why. Like, why is good collaboration in an open-source office software so unrealistic when way more complicated-seeming state synchronization happens in open source and indie games all the time?

I've used dwm for years and recently switched to niri and really, really like it.

I'm with you, that tiling vertically is not useful. Niri aligns better with my innate mental model: just keep adding new panes to the right offscreen that I can scroll through, then I can swipe up and down for more lanes to do collections of different tasks.

I feel much more productive doing read/write tasks, like viewing tickets + code or PDFs + tickets and so-on

This is one of my favorite quotes and I'm glad to see it discussed here.

My favorite interpretation is focusing on the beauty of how even such a mundane thing as a sandwich is a unique experience. Someone made it by-hand, the ingredients have their own backstory in arriving in the present moment, and the taste is greater than the sum of its parts because of all the competing and complementary flavors.

Sandwiches hide in plain sight and even when they aren't great they are unique and will underscore how good your next great one is.

I think the key is that young people get to approach new technology playfully, over-use it, and make mistakes.

I learned lessons as a teenager on Twitter in 2012 that clearly none of the middle-aged people posting constantly on the company Slack ever internalized.

I'm starting to notice AI power users communicating in a shorthand tech-speak I find unintelligible. I genuinely cannot follow the individual points in this article or what the overall arc is.

Is this something that was already part of web dev or is it new?

I think it's deeper than that, once you know software is never done you have to design for constant change.

When clients ask why something takes so long, I explain that I'm not building what you asked for today, I'm building something that will be easy to turn into what you asked for today and possible to turn into whatever you ask for tomorrow.

I'm not sure which is worse: human marketer instructing AI specifically to make everyone more diverse and attractive or human marketer instructing AI to do basic marketing and AI has internalized to make everyone more diverse and attractive.

I didn't mean it to be harsh. I'm not denying the validity of their perspective.

I'm just less interested in it than the usual business of surveying domain experts of differing professional opinions and weaving something out of it.

This one reads like two coworkers casually speculating over lunch.

I'm just not that excited about journalists interviewing other journalists about things other than journalism or the media.

> I believe that not only do 20% of the people do 80% of the work, but that all this work only achieves its ultimate goals thanks to the <5% of the people who do stuff that someone else is supposed to do, but won't, for reasons which are perfectly legitimate in the organization's view of reality, even though the cumulative effect of such legitimate reasons is the certain death of the whole place.

I don't know that I've ever felt so validated by a HN submission.

I am definitely one of those suckers that does extra work others will not do. It isn't altruistic, I just can't motivate myself to work at all if my tasks are stupid. The problem is that at any sufficiently large organization many of the tasks are stupid because hardly anyone is on the same page.

I have worked on DO-178C (aerospace) and IEC 62304 (medical device) software design documents and they are much narrower in scope.

OP's design document is comprehensive enough to cover much of ground of the full documentation package for regulated software submissions. Basically all that's left is tracing requirements to design to verification method to verification result.

Stimulus checks?