TheGRS

It definitely also applies to infrastructure like building out clean energy or highways. My connection there was to say, yes build a data center so that we also need to build more energy production. I feel like a lot of people view the current problem from the lens that energy is a finite resource, when its also something that can be expanded.

I consider myself pretty YIMBY, but the data center build outs are definitely starting to catch my eye.

On one hand I want to stay YIMBY here, my typical problem with arguments against this stuff is that it looks at the resources as finite. We can/should build more power capacity. Water usage concerns already have solutions. The market should be allowed to do its thing.

On the other hand I think there are looming problems with data centers. Energy is the obvious one because its detrimentally affecting residents who had no part or say in someone gobbling up a public resource. And its cheaper to build the centers that don't recycle their water usage, so some legislation is needed there. A moratorium toward those ends makes a lot of sense to me.

I have one other unfinished thought that maybe a wait-and-see mentality is a good thing right now. We might be approaching peak LLM usage, maybe. If we are nearing a bubble burst, I can see how a state's leadership might want to protect its residents however it can, but I don't totally know if a moratorium on this achieves that or just delays the inevitable.

This seemed like a great guide to starting any sort of meetup, not just Ruby, FWIW. Good read. I think a lot of meetups fizzled in non-hub cities. I lived in Portland, OR up until recently and we had a vibrant meet-up scene before covid where there was lots of walking to different tech offices and you could typically find a meetup every day of the work week, now its pretty dead on most fronts and there is definitely opportunity for folks to step in and restart it!

They're referencing a pretty publicized spat between some folks at the UN and Elon Musk promising he would donate that amount of money towards solving world hunger. It was meant as an example of pricing at this scale. https://factually.co/fact-checks/business/elon-musk-6-billio...

I agree, the "buy" on a streamable product implies that as long as the company is solvent and they have the same overall streamable products available, then your "purchase" should always be upheld.

In a an ideal world, if you bought the title then you'd have the ability to download it locally. I understand the licensing is a main driver of taking titles down, but these agreements are completely opaque to the customer at the time of purchase.

The win/win scenario I think is recognizing there is a market for the preserved titles and putting the effort in to capture that market. There's effort involved in emulating old games to work on modern hardware.

But yes I think you're on to something that Nintendo plays the long game the best, they handle their IPs like Disney does: featuring them across multiple verticals that feed into each other. Its surprising to me how long its taken Nintendo to come back to movies and TV.

Actually now that I think about it, Disney's biggest shortcoming is their video game division despite many wonderful retro Disney and Lucasarts games at their disposal.

We should all appreciate that most homes were not done by teams of professionals back in the day. Multiple things can be true here, 1) building your own home will take a lot of time to get right (so time being used in place of money), 2) the skills involved are all completely learnable and do-able for an able-bodied person who again is willing to put the time in, and 3) its not worth it for the vast majority of people who don't want to learn these skills and would rather focus on their own work and pay someone else to be a professional in the space. And yes 4) I've seen quite a bit of DIY work in homes and sometimes its impressive but usually its questionable and sometimes even horrific.

My general impression with most discourse about the economy and statements like "Inflation to my mind supposes that we have to have perpetual growth" is that it looks at transactions within the economy as zero-sum. And that is a false assumption. It grows and shrinks for myriad of reasons that aren't directly related to monetary policy. The monetary policy is there to attempt to keep things stable and predicable, that is all.

If we grow 3 times the amount of corn that we need this year, do we need to plan to grow 3.1 times next year? Or decrease the cost by 2%? If all the inputs stay the same, where do you get the gains from(assuming that the process is as efficient and automated as possible)?

I think I get what you're driving at, but let me ask this question. Do you believe the price of corn in 1976 reflects the same market forces as the price of corn in 2026? Not the inflationary number alone, but why that corn costs what it does today versus 50 years ago?

There are microeconomic changes for sure, different farming techniques and maybe a different way of buying and selling surplus corn. But the life of a farm hand has likely changed, the average background of them has likely changed, the ownership model of the farm may have changed. The downstream buyers of corn have likely changed from mostly canned good manufacturers to fresh produce providers. And the macroeconomic forces surrounding everything has absolutely changed.

Capital has multiple forms, I agree that physical goods generally depreciate over time. But there is also land, equity, and bonds and they all have their own market forces to deal with.

I'm hand-waving a lot of arguments and considerations with this statement, but from my perspective one advantage to 2-3% inflation is to incentivize owning capital that will outpace inflation. Land, equity, and bonds all have that potential.

Deflation may incentivize renegotiation of labor, but it also incentivizes hoarding of cash, which itself is not otherwise valuable. The value comes from it being passed around through the economy buying more assets. The more purchases -> the more money to be passed around -> the more opportunity to grow the economy. In a deflationary environment (at least in theory) this slows all of that down and decreases economic opportunity, which we generally don't want.

Whoa...harsh words. I consider their fried chicken sando the best in the biz, yes even over Chik-fil-a

You get the same vigor against all of those project all the time. Windmills, solar, nuclear, rail, etc. There's a stronger will to oppose than to build.

I feel like that wasn't nearly as interesting as the title promised. The stuff that I find fascinating about modern Europe against the Roman Empire is how it carved out the modern dividing lines in some areas, or seeded cultural roots that would become their own thing over time (the British being a pretty interesting one). But its all so long ago that all of the other influences that happened over time are probably bigger hallmarks than their Roman roots (like the British again, being invaded by the normans and vikings).

Probably also momentum in their previous meter systems to keep it mostly the same.

I think it makes a pretty good assumption on understanding core chess rules, but yea that would be nice. The thing that did trip me up at first was not realizing the red and blue bishops were the same piece, I was wondering if I was missing something.

Dang, that's really fun! I think its solid all-around and no notes on the core game loop.

If you want to make it more accessible to folks like myself who stink at chess, I'd recommend adding some sort of power-ups so that you can take multiple pieces, jump over obstacles, or freeze enemies in place. And with that you probably have a great little game to sell on Steam :)

If anything the prompt from your phone that your meter is expiring is a huge plus against forgetting about it and getting dinged with an outrageous parking ticket. I'd much rather go through the brief stress of that reminder than a ticket any day. A parking ticket will put me in a sour mood for the rest of the day easily.

Being someone who was glued to this stuff at that time, I thought Doom 3 had that energy, but they were also clearly taking their time to get it right. And that time spent ended up giving Valve the chance to slip in with Half-Life 2 and steal some of their thunder. Otherwise I felt like they were setting out to do some amazing new things with the tech and game design and they (mostly) accomplished that.

Builders will love to do it, which is where the code comes from. Long before robotaxi's were even an idea we would see buildings tout "car-lite" lifestyle buildings, aiming for residents using bicycles and public transport. Residents will (correctly IMO) point out that people grab these apartments and bring their cars anyway.

I'm sorry but the assumption that robotaxis will make parking spots obsolete in 5 years is the sort of thinking that probably keeps Elon Musk a rich little boy. About 10 years ago we had conversations about autonomous driving coming by 2020 and how it would likely make auto insurance irrelevant. That hasn't materialized yet, and granted we are much further along now, but it seems like we're still a long way away from it being the norm to the point where it disrupts city building codes.

If you can save millions in costs every quarter for the degraded experience, I can see why leaders want to take the risk. Really depends on who is making the calls I guess, for the services that depend on customer experience I would think an AI service agent would probably be out of the question.

I think I'm seeing the advantages of using this, but I can't help feel like momentum is going to be strongly against adoption. Already feeling like if I suggested this it would meet a ton of eye-rolls, there'd be all this new plumbing needed just to support something we can already do in similar ways.

You need to retrain managers from seeing a prototype and thinking "yep, ship it" and over to "okay, how do we build this properly?" And I don't think that's gonna happen.

It is pretty funny how this whole industry in a very short amount of time, with tons of experience and knowledge to lean on, reverted back to dubious measurements of productivity. If you track LoC and tokens used as productivity measurements, developers are going to max their LoC and token usage! Its so predictable that we have a Law named after this phenomenon! The fallout was so predictable I feel like I should have been positioning myself for all of the potential consulting work that's about to be needed.

I'm hand waving the exact times, it was probably talking through how to filter by datetime a specific way for maybe 5 minutes followed by some discussion around these other ways to go about finding a solution. It was filtering by date starting from the beginning of the week. I searched around for a little bit since I didn't really know how to do this off the top of my head. Found a function that did what I wanted, then ran into type issues, more flailing around trying to get this working. I'll fully admit I didn't ace this.

I'm thinking of a technical screen I did recently where I didn't move forward. The time to do the screen was 30 minutes, and it was where they had a full frontend/backend and I needed to navigate around to fix a pretty arbitrary issue. I'd say this is preferable to a leetcode problem for sure, but also, I do tend to take my time to understand the system a bit before committing to changes, I mean this is sight unseen. I'm wondering if this felt too slow to the interviewer.

They sent me a summary document before the meeting, but I couldn't see the code until the interview. I felt like I identified the issue and where to make changes rather quickly, like 10 minutes of looking around and talking through how all the components and APIs fit together.

Then the interviewer asked me to implement a datetime solution, which in this time-boxed window my mind raced around to multiple solutions that I talked through out loud: I could write it myself which would definitely take some time for me to remember all of the syntax involved and reason through the problem, I could download an existing library which would also take some time to read documentation, I could google around for existing solutions in somewhere like Stack Overflow which is pretty hit and miss, or I could prompt an AI agent to write a solution for me. I talked through all of these, they wanted to know how I'd do it by hand at first, which I talked through for a bit but admitted I wasn't sure if it was a good way to go about it. Then I said given the time constraints the AI prompt route would probably make the most sense. By the time we arrived at that and tried it for a bit our time was basically up. And I got the impression suggesting AI to help code didn't impress the interviewer at all.

If others are able to stand out in this scenario then I guess I'll just admit I'm not the top candidate. My brain just doesn't work that quickly. I like to spend time gathering context and tinkering before really getting into the solution, and that probably doesn't come across well in these situations.

I always thought of 9/11 as the major event for older millennials. I used to think it was all millennials, but many weren't even in kindergarten when it happened.

I figure from the context of the post they are asking sincere questions to their co-workers where they think their experience and knowledge is appropriate, but otherwise I agree that people should do a little legwork on their own before asking out loud.

For immediate term you should stick with what you know. I think that makes for much better prompting where you are coming in with experience with the language and the general style you'd like to see.

Rust is a language I would like to adopt longterm, but its not one I can easily grok and so my output would be worse for it.

I can probably fix package manager issues by hand, and quickly with a little rubber ducking with the LLM itself. I'm not sure that's a huge problem in the grand scheme.

There's a lot of stuff in Python's favor in regard to coding with LLMs: its wildly popular so there's a lot of references for the right and wrong ways to use it, it can be typed using included libraries - its as simple as telling the LLM "use typing for this", and there are several great lint and unit testing tools to cover the hallucinations and poor decisions. The flexibility seems like an advantage to me personally, but I've always been a Python stan.

Sure, and history deals the cards we're given and so on and so forth. Why don't we have referendums on keeping the US Constitution every year? That would be democratic as hell.