Imagine placing the feet on the ground at some location and then pinning them there. Now you can move the hips and the upper and lower legs as well as the knee orientations change to keep the feet planted in the same position.
3,279 karma · joined July 1, 2013
For things I don't care about.. meh. I wouldn't have done any research without AI anyway and I'm probably getting a better nuanced or grounded answer than whatever someone who thinks they know might confidently explain me.
I'd argue getting your answers from social media is orders of magnitude worse, and the time to teach critical thinking skills was a few decades ago.
You don't have to provide a perfect solution to point out something is wrong. People who don't care about the people they lead don't make good leaders. I'd rather have leaders who hurt others by accident than on purpose.
I don't think many people share this sentiment.
I'm on Windows 10 btw, no idea if it still works on 11.
Thank you!
Why... just why? Why do people keep insisting on using it?
I set boundaries during design where I choose responsibilities, interfaces and names. Red Green Refactor is very useful for beginners who would otherwise define boundaries that are difficult to test and maintain.
I design components that are small and focused so their APIs are simple and unit tests are incredibly easy to define and implement, usually parametrized. Unit tests don't keep me "sane", they keep me sleeping well at night because designing doesn't drive me mad. They don't define how the "program" is supposed to work, they define how the unit is supposed to work. The smaller the unit the simpler the test. I hope you agree: simple is better than complex. And no, I don't subscribe to "you only need integration tests".
Otherwise, nice battery of ad hominems you managed to slip in: my understanding of quality software is lacking, my problem is my approach to engineering and I'm an immature developer. All that from "LLMs can automate most of the boring stuff, including unit tests with 100% coverage." because you can't fathom how someone can design quality software without TDD, and you can't steelman my argument (even though it's recommended in the guidelines [1]). I do review and correct the LLM output. I almost always ask it for specific test cases to be implemented. I also enjoy seeing most basic test cases and most edge cases covered. And no, I don't particularly enjoy writing factories, setups, and asserts. I'm pretty happy to review them.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
LLMs can make mistakes. Humans can't.
I think think the underlying problem people have is they don't trust themselves to review code written by others as much as they trust themselves to implement the code from scratch. Realistically, a very small subset of developers do actual "engineering" to the level of NASA / aerospace. Most of us just have inflated egos.
I see no problem modelling the problem, defining the components, interfaces, APIs, data structures, algorithms and letting the LLM fill in the implementation and the testing. Well designed interfaces are easy to test anyway and you can tell at a glance if it covered the important cases. It can make mistakes, but so would I. I may overlook something when reviewing, but the same thing often happens when people work together. Personally I'd rather do architecture and review at a significantly improved speed than gloat I handcrafted each loop and branch as if that somehow makes the result safer or faster (exceptions apply, ymmv).
Even if you could duplicate it down to the molecule I would assume it wouldn't hold the same value since it doesn't have the same history. Assuming you'd want to sell it in good faith as a replica.
Should be applied for what purpose? What's the purpose of the government and what's the purpose of a corporation? When the latter is strongly influencing the former, why is it difficult to entertain the idea that their purpose and interests align?
> Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?
There's a difference between seeking and weighing input, and simply passing along legislature proposals without even looking at it. This is a strawman.
> Yet this is a golden age by every measure.
This isn't guaranteed to improve or even remain forever. And it really depends where you look. Plenty of war, misery and suffering to go around. And even in safe countries the lack of education, healthcare, financial stability is causing enough stress that people start favoring authoritarian options. That's not a great sign for the future. Just because most of us are doing better than our ancestors, doesn't mean we're going in the right direction or that we're doing the best we can. No progress is achieved by being content with the status quo, and the present is pretty miserable for a lot of people. Should we wait until a terrible war wipes out half the planet before we consider maybe changing things?
But I think that's beside the point. The argument being discussed is whether corporate entities parabolically "are" the government.
Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs. Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. And this is just the blatant tip of the iceberg the current administration is brazen enough to show publicly.
> absolutely baffling to you and which probably makes a hundred obvious counter-arguments pop up in your head.
I can probably find a hundred obvious examples of conflict of interests, quid-pro-quos, or otherwise pro-corporation anti-consumer for any administration in history. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the government is issuing gold cards with the president's face on them for multi-millionaires to bring their business.
I'd be glad to hear a few of those hundred obvious counter-arguments.
If they instead waited 12 days, they could start with the 6 puzzles already released, and then have enough puzzles to solve once a day for the next 12 days.
> Find all java files with more than 100 lines.
● I'll search for all Java files with more than 100 lines in the codebase.
● Bash(find . -name "*.java" -type f -exec wc -l {} + | awk '$1 > 100' | sort -nr)
...
● I found 5 Java files with more than 100 lines:
1. File1.java - 315 lines
2. File2.java - 156 lines
3. File3.java - 154 lines
4. File4.java - 130 lines
5. File5.java - 117 lines
The largest file is File1.java with 315 lines.
> How many lines don't start with `import` in File1.java?
● Bash(grep -cv "^import " ./File1.java) ⎿ 287
● There are 287 lines that don't start with import in File1.java.