JohnAaronNelson

Thinking one step ahead instead of two

We use AI as a teaching aid. It supplements traditional learning. It gives people the ability to have a dialogue with information.

It’s not replacement

The real question is “how to get shit done”?

Scrum, agile, safe, etc.. are ways to get shit done that all target the measurement.

Estimations are that measurement.

The nugget from this article that seems to missed by many is the subtle but strong advocacy for XP style Mob/Pair programming.

There was a part of the article that discussed that you create tasks, not stories.

You can group the tasks into stories or milestones or iterations or epics.

In general, he’s saying you should always keep breaking down a task until it’s a 1, since 1s are easy to estimate.

The key part that may be missed is the “mob programming” or “pair programming” aspect where all the engineers on a team sit together and work through a story or milestones or epic to come up with a list one 1 point tasks.

Obviously this still can’t be done, so the only effective end solution is maximum pair/mob programming unless all tasks in an iteration are accounted for and broken down into easily understandable and estimable bits of work.

There is at least some truth to the notion that if you use mob programming, estimating becomes pointless.

It’s not as easy in reality as theory.

1) Services are often unique per patient. Even for patients with the same ICD-10 codes, the quality of service will vary. Hospitals cost different amounts to run. If you always peg the price to the lowest, it will be a race to the bottom for quality of service.

2) Patients are unique, with different health profiles, with different preferences for paying. Markets are different. Some markets only have one insurance payer.

3) Healthcare is already tax deductible

I’m reading the book “determined” right now. It’s pretty good and sums up all the arguments very nicely.

And of course we don’t have free will. We have experience, which fools us into thinking we are in control.

Then take off the “self” part.

How about conscious is awareness? The more aware you are, the more conscious you are?

It seems that an anesthesiologists job is to make sure you’re unconscious. If there’s anyone that knows how to define consciousness, it should probably be them.

Seems that consciousness is an awareness of certain stimuli that give rise to novel patterns in our brain, in turn triggering our frontal lobes to notice…

Don’t blame Wright. The builder changed the design and didn’t pick the right concrete.

Don't knock it till you try it. I was originally of a similar impression upon discovering the technique.

The breaks are not so you stop thinking about what you're doing. They're to take you away from it. I continue to think during my breaks about what I'm doing.. I am just not allowed to do it.

It allows me to step back from what I'm doing and re-evaluate if what I'm doing at this very moment is what I should be doing. Otherwise, it's easy to get stuck just wanting to finish what you're doin

It also does allow me to stop thinking about what I'm doing, for a brief moment, while leaving the train of through intact in the subconscious.

Typically, when someone loses their train of thought because of distractions, it is because they have to switch what they're focused on. The train gets derailed because it has to go along another track. Pomodoro breaks are more like stopping the train to look around than switching tracks.

Furthermore, removing distractions and staying in your train of thought is what the technique is fundamentally all about. Once you start the technique, you'll notice that the requirement that you keep track of your distractions, allows you to focus on ridding yourself of distractions first and foremost. Once you have found a way to rid yourself of distractions, every moment of those 25 minutes becomes precious, your mind sharpens, and solutions become clear.

The breaks allow you to dis-engage, providing greater focus and clarity.

There was a significant bit of the article at the end where the author discussed future changes to the codebase that requires special casing handles for different shapes, how it would have been difficult with the refactor but simple with the repetitive code.

I think that’s the critical bit is that you have to realize that the code will change in the future. Requirements will change, related code will change. If you make abstractions that restrict that ability to change, you’re hurting future you’s ability to adapt the codebase. More so because we often hold on, emotionally, to these abstractions we’ve invested so much time and effort into that we waste more time trying to elegantly fit the changes into our elegant solution.

KISS

What if consciousness is an emergent illusion? “You” are merely a passenger, observing your physical self’s actions and assuming ownership of them. What if consciousness is merely an effect, not a cause?

What if humans’ responses are merely probabilistically consistent with a history of sensory experiences? Would this change the significance of human emotions vs apparent emergent emotional responses from LLMs?

Thank you for your contributions. Am I correct that you are asserting there are substantial numbers of practicing psychologists that literally and absolutely believe inner structures of the brain are unchanged over hundreds of millions of years, and they can and will be reached by this paper?

If anyone doesn't understand "All models are wrong, but some are useful" I don't know if you'll reach them with this paper.

Maybe it needs to be said. It's possible the most useful papers are those that assert obvious things in ways that refute our basic models so we can see things differently. It's also possible this is a clickbait paper that isn't saying anything new, just trying to be controversial.

No one thinks the older structures are static. No one is arguing that. It's a simplified model about the origin.

This argument is akin to saying we're not "newer" apes ala

The refutation is of the idea that it’s a strictly chronological ordering of species, with the old species still inside and intact. The correct view is that while homosapiens are indeed mostly "newer", the “older” apes were also modified throughout evolution

Obviously.

Exactly what the article said. I feel like you are strongly asserting a key premise of the article as if you are saying something new.

Yes

The married woman enjoyed having sex with a dog so she invited others to come watch.

Much of the value in Reddit isn’t “what’s happening now” but in that trove of information gathered over the last ten years. Reddit is a primary source of information because of that trove. Engagement numbers will obviously suffer if Reddit drops out of search results.

The killer app will be porn and/or virtually undressing the people around you.

Can you explain to me how choosing “the most likely next word” is reasoning? Can there be reasoning without language?

Maybe your anecdotes don’t define the evolutionary history of women?

In my experience, price is not correlated to value with tradespeople. Price is usually correlated to honesty. It’s easy to get quotes for jobs that have a huge range in price and it’s often the least expensive that will do the work right. They don’t quote you what their rate is. They quote you what they think they can get out of you. The price is correlated to how much money you have. The quality is correlated to how much you know and pay attention.

Seems like it would be fairly easy to use this pseudo selector, and apply it to every element on the page. Making them show up as empty to the user

GitHub Copilot

Money laundering, black market money transfers, tax evasion.

That’s super creative. I’ve never heard of someone doing something like this before.

You said you have “mid five figures left” so less than 100k. Is that life changing? Or more like “I got a new Audi” or “I was able to reno my kitchen”.

Also how much time did you spend on it? Sounds like you went deep down the rabbit hole.

Thank you. Saying “my bad” is the first step. Fixing it afterwards is what good people do.

When someone is accused of a crime, they can plead innocent or guilty. That is step one.

There are more steps after that…

Facebook (and social media in general) has made the world a more divided place full of sadder and angrier people. He runs a company that optimizes for that scenario while accruing unimaginable sums of capital, and he doubled down with Meta. Hmm I wonder why some people are not fans.