sixothree

I don't even need to watch that video to be reminded of the tagline - "Audacity says no!". Agreed this is a great watch for pretty much any developer.

They should make the catalog online and available so people know how they can help.

I wouldn't exactly describe one person as "the government".

I didn't quite want to say it myself since I've been so negative sometimes lately. But it was something I noticed and picking a random profile to view was pretty stomach turning.

But I get there is backlash. Not everyone lives in the bubble HN does. Not even everyone here is accepting of AI. I don't even know where I stand many times. But something feels off about this response. It's certainly looking brigaded.

On my home feed was another AI announcement. Few comments. Zero hate. And I definitely expected more there.

Where did I say something was wrong with them?

I do think it is worth questioning why an entire thread is filled specifically and exclusively with cartoon character avatars. Pick a thread, pretty much any thread on bsky with 20+ replies and I believe you'll have trouble reproducing these results. I have had trouble finding one.

Feel free to locate some and point them out to me. Let me know how many threads it took you to find one. I am genuinely curious.

I honestly suspect that if he said he was using OpenAI instead, the results would be completely different. Ever since the DOD thing, pretty much every sub, thread, or reference to Claude, has resulted in vitriol. It mostly materializes as one-line comments and harassment.

What I noticed in this is that literally every single poster has a cartoon avatar. I assume they farm their karma in threads related to a game, movie, show, etc.

Does every single one of these posters have a cartoon avatar? What's going on here?

Closing tabs and I came back across conventionalbranch.org. I know this isn't your argument, just passing on info.

But holy heck, I really have to argue with their literal first point. All lowercase, for what reason? It's never explained why they insist on a dated convention instead of proper style.

And in what world is "feat/" abbreviation considered allowable?

I lump this in with advice from people who put their source in a src/ folder instead of Source/.

> People have been doing this for years.

Tell me something I don't know. My point is that it's usage has seen a _measurable_ increase where I work over the last two years.

I don't think I have a single "feature/*" branch before 2024. Developer names, feature names, sure. But specifically feature/, no.

If you use "Feat/" at my company you will get called out. No abbreviations allowed. Capitalization matters.

But that doesn't change my argument. For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry.

And my point is that this pattern is now more popular than it was 3 years ago. Similar to people using the phrase "load bearing".

For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry.

I'm not sure why you're arguing that when it's not the point of the statement. YOU have been using that convention. Now do an analysis of the people at your company.

Regex the pattern over time if you want to make an argument against my supporting example.

I think gitkraken is the only tool I use that presents it that way currently. It's a good convention.

The problem with demoting it lies in its beauty. Pluto is beautiful and interesting. We want it to be important. But instead of being the "last of the planets", maybe instead it should be the first of the dwarf planets.

There are many ways you could make a principled argument in that direction and I would agree in lots of cases. But retro-computing is a varied field with lots of different interests. Many of those are simply enthusiast curiosity.

So I will say this. Back in the days of 80x25 terminals, I was adamant that larger screens made you more productive. I don't remember anything but outright derision and skepticism in this regard. The saying "the monitor is the computer" meant a lot to me. The limitations of the day were defining but as developers we always wanted the best technology and tools available.

Doesn't this bring us closer to that?

I assumed the convention came from somewhere before AI and maybe one of the new devs brought it in from there. We also have an analyst who used em-dashes before AI ruined them, and who justifiably complains about that every so often. I'm not sure that's a trend anyone wants to pick up on.

But for branches in addition to Feature/, we're seeing Hotfix/, Modernization/, you name it. If you're parking branches for a long time without completing them, I'm 100% appreciative they're categorized.

Did you create this account simply to disparage a single company?

I had this conversation recently. Not only are search engines and comment threads getting filled with AI responses, but people are increasingly sounding like AI themselves. This makes it even harder to distinguish.

Related to code quality, I've noticed developers picking up tricks from AI. Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention. If any used paths in their branches, it was almost certainly their name. Now everyone uses this convention. Though, they do use correct capitalization instead of lowercase freaking _everything_ that AI does.

Pretty much same. We only use it for internal projects when coding and for research for all team members, not just developers.

Strategically, America was the loser here, not Anthropic.

I think this is a better self-test.

Visualize a ball on a table. Now imagine someone walks up to the table, and gives the ball a push. What happens to the ball?

Now, answer these questions:

- What color was the ball?

- What gender was the person that pushed the ball?

- What did they look like?

- What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?

- What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?

And now the important question: Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color/gender/size, etc. after being asked these questions?

> Yes, drawing itself requires expertise. But if you truly have a great capacity for visualization, you should be able to produce at least a really dodgy drawing of the thing without looking at it.

Art was a required class in my high school. And many of the drawing exercises went about as well as you expect - mid to poorly. One day we were tasked with drawing things present in the studio and my results that day were insanely impressive.

It's important to keep track of characters when your final grade depends on it. Dialog was a bit difficult too because it was easy to lose track of who was speaking. What's interesting is that I remember enjoying reading when I was young. But that changed around 10 years I think.

> - Visualising what is happening in the book you are reading.

This one is absolutely brutal. Even having a basic understanding of this condition could have changed my trajectory related to anything involving fiction during school. Having every character in a book visioned as a gray amorphous blog really does make it a difficult. And realizing only later that I was the only person in class experiencing this leaves me feeling so much regret and sadness.

I was not making a point. I was trying to clarify the example.

But after the answers, I do think his example is poor. Models available at HF have many purposes and will run on many platforms. Commenters here are suggesting this will no longer be the case.

Whereas the example Workflow (iOS only) -> Shortcuts (iOS only), there was no change in that regard.

Was Workflow available on every platform running on every hardware provider?

He didn't cut government spending, just ask the GAO. He did though go on a rampage to prove that brown people weren't worthy of the positions they held.

My friend. If you know anything about Louisiana and their current government is that the people are there to be exploited. This is not going to help the people of the area at all.

> I don’t care about Musk as a person.

How convenient. You have to ignore him on a personal level to be a supporter like you are. Because you know he's a repulsive individual on every level. And if you didn't qualify your support for him you'd debase yourself.