HN user
"could argue that it has been harmed by the diversion of the funds to a different field. But that argument would likely take so long to sort out in court that all the money would have been spent by then."
So if I steal from someone and spend it fast enough, I wouldn't be responsible anymore and can get away with it? That's how that sounded to me.
Just thinking about how this could be useful and it could serve as an interesting counter example. So if you have an idea and you find it on this graveyard, it's probably something not to do or it might be worth thinking on a little longer before proceeding.
I spun up an old laptop the other day and it has Windows 10 on it. I can't believe how snappy and fast that old laptop felt in comparison to what I've been experiencing on Windows 11.
Especially when you consider that the old laptop has inferior hardware to my newer one with twice the RAM.
I just hate using windows at this point.
This channel is less than 2 years old, <60k subs, most of their videos have low view rates... I don't get it. Is this a joke?
I will say, I love the idea of re-thinking PR's in the age of AI. I think it will be needed and I don't see GitHub pulling it off. I think they will just double down on trying to get AI to review it for us.
I haven't signed up, but I'm not convinced the stacked PR's is a good route. This is mostly because I'm thinking about it in terms of how I work now, so maybe after a trial run I would see it differently. My experience with launching software is people don't want to change their workflows.
So the way I imagine how this would get used by real accounts is they will still review individual PR's and merge them in like normal and avoid doing stacked PR's because a lot of us mostly care about the final result and less about the how you got there.
That is until we need to understand the how lol So being able to visualize this is probably a very useful tool for retroactive inspection over being part of the PR review workflow.
I hope the author doesn't feel like I'm dunking on them, I really love the idea of re-thinking PR.
It doesn't work if you're treating it like a peer engineer. It only works if you treat it like you're a customer with no concern with how it works behind the scenes.
That's what's being asked of me in my last two jobs. Vibe code it, if it's bad just throw it away and regenerate it because it's "cheap". The only thing that matters is that you can quickly generate visible changes and ship it to market.
Out of frustration I asked upper management (in my current job), if you want me to use AI like that then I'll do it. But when it inevitably fails, who is responsible? If there's no risk to me, I will AI generate everything starting today, but if I have to take on the risk I won't be able to do this.
Their response was that AI generates the code, I'm responsible for reviewing it and making sure it's risk free. I can see that they're already looking for contractors (with no skin in the game) that are more than willing to run the AI agents and ship vibe code, so I'm at a loss on what to do.
Even in the video it looks like it does a terrible job. Hilariously he drives past all the other potholes that was just shown at the beginning of the video.
In my opinion you're undercutting your own argument. You should be working to remove tablets from the schools instead of advocating for making us register our ID's all over the internet (which has proven to be insecure on an almost monthly basis now).
I don't think AI is the cause, it's merely the mechanism that is speeding up what has already been happening.
Social media was already isolating people. It is being sped up by the use of AI bots (see dead internet theory). These bots are being used to create chaos in society for political purposes, but overall it's increasingly radicalizing people and as a result further isolating everyone.
AI isn't eroding college institutions, they were already becoming a money grab and a glorified jobs program. Interpersonal relationships (i.e. connections) are still present, I don't see how AI changes that in this scenario.
I am not a fan of how AI is shaping our society, but I don't place blame on it for these instances. It is in my opinion that AI is speeding up these aspects.
The article does highlight one thing that I do attribute to AI and that is the lack of critical thinking. People are thinking less with the use of AI. Instead of spending time evaluating, exploring and trying to think creatively. We are collectively offloading that to AI.
I like the design, but I can't see myself owning it beyond having it as a hobby vehicle to around town. I've grown far too used to a GPS screen, rear camera and an entertainment system (free of ads thanks to my streaming subscription).
I think it's mostly about squeezing consumers for more money, even after they already paid a premium, because they simply can and nobody will do anything about it.
I think live scribe is what you're looking for. I've never used it but at some point they were buying them for people at my first job.
Ironically at my company, our custom software made us too flexible. There was too many crazy left field demands that weren't really that useful.
So when it came time to think about next steps. There was real appeal in being able to say, "No it's not supported in xyz software we just adopted". This prevents us from looking like the bad guy who's just getting in the way and should be laid off because we didn't want to spend 2 months implementing a hair brained idea that would only give us a net return of like four or five thousand dollars.
If the companies are interested in protecting their margins, I think we will see prices higher than the % increase in tariffs e.g. many grocery stores have a 1 - 4% profit margin, so a 25% increase would mean they have to increase more than 25% because the overall profit margin will decrease. $1 with a 4% profit margin means it make 4 cents, but $1.25 with a 4% profit margin is 5 cents. So that means they'd have to raise it like 27%.
The immediate question that comes to mind for me is where would they live? Usually if they die off it's because they lost their habitat to some destructive force. Their evolutionary advantage or balance is gone. So even if they were the original animal brought back from extinction, what's to keep them from dying out again.
I will add, from playing with this just now, three's feels so much harder.
Oh, I'm surprised you didn't find a startup to list instead :)
How is Zscaler an underdog of the day? This doesn't seem fair from the start.
One counterpoint, what about when that ice cube is part of a tray of ice that is melting into the cup? My understanding is these glacier sheets are resting on land and sliding into the water.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/chang...
Only problem I see is that now that everyone is ignoring calls and focusing on text messages, there's now a lot of spam text messages and that is only going to grow.
This should apply to online transactions, which my employer does. My employer is pursuing this and are expecting to get a lot of money back as a result.
Edit: "our company" -> "my employer" for clarity.
Regarding GP's argument, I would argue it's less about freedom of speech and more about trade protection. Although software is not a physical good, letting another country restrict us and simultaneously flood our market is not good either.
In firefox adding a couple raises causes the site to crash for me when trying to add my salary.
edit: the site layout seems completely messed up in chrome
Hm, I never even thought about this style of art, I had to look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
Doubt it will do anything to curb the current level of spam, not to mention its transitioning from calls to text, now that people have learned to just not answer their phone.
To an extent, having a polished established look is to build trust.
If the website looks poorly executed, customers will walk. Think about it, if the site has zero reputation and looks really janky, would you put your credit card in?
Your average consumer will say no.
Just to clarify, I am not advocating for tests to only test one thing, rather that after you have tested for one scenario you don't need to rehash it again in another test.
Breaking a test down helps to clarify what you're testing and helps to prevent 80 loc unit tests. When I test for multiple things, I look for the equivalent of nunit's assert.multiple in the language that I'm in.
The approach I advocate for typically simplifies testing multiple scenarios with clear objectives and tends to make it easier when it comes time to refactor/fix/or just delete a no longer needed unit test. The difference I find, is that now you know why, vs having to figure out why.
Well, I don't regard unit tests as the one true way. I don't enforce people on my team do it my way. When I get compliments on my work, I tend to elaborate and spread my approach. That's what I mean by evangelize, not necessarily advocating for a specific criteria to be met.
I find that integration tests are usually are flaky, its my personal experience. In fact, at my company, we just decided to completely turn them off because they fail for many reasons and the usual fix is to adjust the test. If you have had a lot of success with them, great. Just for the record, I am not anti-integration or end-to-end test. I think they have a place and just like unit tests shouldn't be the default, neither should they.
Here are the two most common scenarios where I find integration (usually end-to-end called integration) tests become flaky:
1) DateTime, some part of business logic relies on the current date or time and it wasn't accounted for.
2) Data changes, got deleted, it expired, etc. and the test did not first create everything it needed before running the test.
Regarding your points,
1) "realism" that is what I referred to as trusting that a unit test is good enough. If it didn't go all the way to the database and back did it test your system? In my personal work, I find that pulling the data from a database and supplying it with a mock are the same thing. So it's not only real enough for me, but better because I can simulate all kinds of scenarios that wouldn't be possible in true end-to-end tests.
2) These days the only code that's hard to test is from people that are strictly enforcing OOP. Just like any approach in programming, it will have it's pros and cons. I rarely go down that route, so testing isn't usually difficult for me.
3) It's just been my personal experience. Like I said, I'm not anti-integration tests, but I don't write very many of them.
4) I didn't refer to google, just my personal industry experience.
5) Enforcing ideal is a waste of time in programming. People only care about what they see when it ships. I just ship better quality code when I unit test my business logic. Some engineers benefit from it, some harm themselves in confusion, not much I can do about it.
Most of this is my personal experience, no knock against anyone and I don't force my ideals on anybody. I happily share what and why things work for me. I gradually introduce my own learning over time as I am asked questions and don't seek to enforce anything.
Happy coding!
I have tried to evangelize unit testing at each company I've worked at and most engineers struggle with two things.
The first is getting over the hurdle of trusting that a unit test is good enough, a lot of them only trust an end-to-end test which are usually very brittle.
The second reason is, I think, a lot of them don't know how to systematically breakdown test into pieces to validate e.g. I'll do a test for null, then a separate test for something else _assuming_ not null because I've already written a test for that.
The best way I've been able to get buy-in for unit testing is giving a crash course on a new structure that has a test suite per function under test. This allows for a much lower loc per test that's much easier to understand.
When they're ready I'll give tips on how to get the most of their tests with things like, boundary value analysis, better mocking, IoC for things like date time, etc.
Your comment made me go lookup my old reviews. It's crazy, most of them were deleted. I would have expected to receive some kind of notification.
I thought I could sift through the rubble to discern fake from real but now I know Amazon reviews are absolutely worthless.