cweagans

Cambridge. The job market is absolute trash right now and you managed to get your foot in the door at Amazon anyway. If you can do it now, you can certainly do it with your masters later if needed.

It's important to understand that what we have, we have because of a comparatively small group of people. That's important and interesting because it means you can influence the outcome of an election in two ways:

1. Get people to change sides. This is difficult: people who already vote in a particular way are unlikely to change because of external pressures (and in fact, are more likely to dig their heels in if challenged on their views); or

2. Get more people to vote. This can be challenging in its own way, but can also just boil down to logistics problems.

Whether or not 100% voter turnout would have the same results is neither here nor there. If you accept that premise + the premise that the vast majority of American voters vote down the party line for one of the major two, then you have potentially 2x the number of voters for your desired outcome. All you have to do is go find them and get them to vote.

If I’m going to be responsible for the code that Claude writes on my behalf, I’m also going to take full responsibility for the moment that it is added to the project history, so I’m going to at least review every line before I allow that to happen.

The automatic coauthor line is also just a pet peeve. It’s a tool, not a person. I don’t say that a commit was coauthored by vim - why should Claude get special treatment?

~50% of Americans voted for the party that is diametrically opposed to them

Less than half of the US population voted in the last election. ~50% of Americans _who voted_ voted for the party that is diametrically opposed to unions, but that group is only ~23% of _Americans_.

Ha, excellent. I think you'll appreciate this then: https://imgflip.com/i/aswdth

I had a 50/50 chance of guessing which side of the bell curve you were on and I was wrong. :)

I have a theory. How close does the following describe you?

* You're an engineer with 3-6 years of experience in a primarily IC role

* Maybe you've done some tech lead stuff, but you've never actively worked in engineering management.

* You feel that management (and HR for some reason?) is constantly in the way of you getting stuff done, and that your life would be easier if you could simply decline every meeting and only communicate through pull requests.

Humor me, please. I'll explain after.

You understand how this sounds, right? It’s very “I totally have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada and is a model” vibes.

Do you have literally any proof? Otherwise, this is all just a silly made up story as far as I’m concerned.

To be clear, your claim is that 'much of the drug trade is r[u]n less than consensually' via some kind of undocumented, unknown-to-most brain implant that can be used to remotely torture people for non-compliance?

That claim falls apart as soon as it touches reality: there are a _lot_ of people who are involved in the drug trade, now and in the past. At some point, one of those people would definitely have had a CT or an MRI on their skull (e.g. my dentist does a whole head CT every 5 years as part of the normal process and insurance pays for it). Surely _one_ of those people would have noticed a brain implant.

This sounds extremely made up.

There is a long history [...] that you will not find documented.

Then how do you know about it? This sounds extremely made up.

Whenever you have control over somebody else's organism, suicide isn't something which makes sense definitionally, even if his own body was used to kill him.

your vendors are likely neurocompromised as well.

What in the world are you talking about.

If they're self-made, they earned the praise.

They aren’t and they didn’t.

Being a self-made billionaire means they created a billion dollars of value. They didn't take it from you or anyone else.

Nobody is a “self made” billionaire. That value you’re talking about didn’t just spring into existence. It had to come from somewhere. There is always a source.

Who flew the rocket? Who built the rocket? Who built the parts for the rocket? Who mixed the fuel?

Building big ambitious things is a good thing. But consolidating an amount of money that nobody could ever reasonably spend into the hands of one person (especially when that money is just the excess value produced by the workers) is unethical and unneeded.

If you've grown a ton of tomatoes, you're probably doing it for the express purpose of profiting from it. To dial back the scope to something more comparable, if I have 4-5 tomato plants, I'm going to have all the tomatoes I want and then some. In that case, yes, I'm absolutely going to give away some tomatoes so that other people can enjoy them (as opposed to them ending up in the compost bin).

I just tap on that to open the relevant app, if I care to see more.

The key difference between what you're doing and what Homebridge enables is to make the relevant app the "Home" app. If all of my IoT devices are controllable (and can be automated to some degree) through a single pane of glass that I can share with my wife, that's a big improvement over "Ok, to get access to our cameras, you need to go install these three apps and log in to all of them and accept my sharing invite, etc, etc".

Yeah, you can talk to Siri to control the devices sometimes, but that is at the very very bottom of my list of benefits. I want the app UI specifically, and Homebridge enables that. (one concrete example: Ring doorbells don't play nicely with Homekit on their own, but you can install a Homebridge extension and then your doorbell camera shows up as a Homekit-compatible camera in the Home app).

A patient doesn't lean over the operating table and tell the surgeon where to cut.

Web design _does_ sound much easier when clients can be anesthetized. :)

Peak east coast US! You can travel three states of distance and back in a day or less on the east coast.

Three states over and back would be a day or two minimum, but potentially nearly a week on the west coast. (Depends on start and stop locations obviously, but if you start from eg Portland, three states over could be the Dakotas).

I, too, find myself wondering why this seems to be such an intractable problem. Maybe it's just misaligned incentives? That is, the phone companies really only care as much as they need to in order to prevent you leaving for another phone company.

From a technical perspective, it doesn't seem to be _that_ difficult: it seems like KYC but for anyone who wants automated access to telephone networks. I know there are some existing efforts there that are more technically comprehensive than that (SHAKEN/STIR), but I don't know where they're at in terms of adoption/rollout.

Can you please make an image that is like 10x bigger? Like 30px font and include all the alphanumeric characters? This font looks so familiar.

shrug maybe so. But then again, I can't say I'm too torn up about losing support for an EOL OS version.

In other ecosystems, I could see how this could be a problem, but I don’t think I’ve ever had a problem with a Go upgrade.

What’re the actual, practical results of a package pushing you towards a higher go version that you wouldn’t otherwise have adopted right away? Why is this actually important to avoid beyond “don’t tell me what to do”?

Sure, but that doesn't address GP's argument, which I _think_ is "there's a time and a place for those criticisms, and _literally every time emacs is brought up in a public forum_ ain't it"

Thanks for that. I'm definitely familiar with that kind of situation, but what I'm not seeing is how that leads to history "collapsing under its own weight" in larger teams. That seems like a relatively straightforward rebase error that is easily corrected. (Also, if it is important for that list to only include unique items and you were able to merge it anyway, maybe that also reveals a gap in the test suite?)

it makes history a lie that eventually collapses under its own weight in large teams

Can you please elaborate on this? I've seen this argument from others as well, but nobody has ever been able to articulate what that actually looks like and why rebasing branches specifically is to blame.

My perspective: whatever happens to the commit history on your non-`main` branch is your business. I don't care about the specifics until your work is merged into a shared branch that we all understand to be the canonical representation of the software we're working on.

“I want this feature” and “I want this feature to not exist” are fundamentally incompatible viewpoints when applied to any given feature. It seems like adding that feature and making it opt-in is a good middle ground. The people that want it can have it and the people who don’t want it can pretend it doesn’t exist. This outcome seems like the result of listening to all viewpoints, so I’m not sure what problem you’re trying to point out.

This is the second time I've seen somebody use the word "clankers" in the last couple days to refer to AI. Is that a thing now? Where'd that come from?

Gonna be honest, it has taken away from the message both times I've seen it. It feels a bit like you're LARPing your favorite humans vs robots tv show.

From your link:

In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test.

I'm not sure you can make the statement that pornographic materials aren't protected speech. I don't think you can make the statement that they are though.

I think that's what I was confused about: I don't see the lie in the comments above. optionalsquid said "[...]did try to implement procedural generation for the mines, but ended up scrapping it"

bombcar said "They're quasi-generated with random elements and fixed elements - similarly to early Diablo procedural generation." (which is true - you confirmed as much in the very next comment - "The levels are all hand drawn, not generated by an algorithm, even if they’re shuffled.". That's all early Diablo was doing.)

"Quasi-generated" seems like an appropriate descriptor here - stringing together level building blocks algorithmically is still "generating" a level in a sense. You're right - it's not correct to say that they were generated in the same way that an LLM generates things, but a) nobody claimed that and b) there is an undeniable element of procedural generation here.

Well, okay, you can select two specific words to fuel your apparent outrage if you'd like, but if you actually read the entire sentence, you'll see that there is some critical context that you're missing: "you have to physically touch it to activate it in the same way that you'd have to touch the Touch ID sensor."

I did not claim that it was the same security scheme or that it's biometric or anything like that. I did claim that you have to physically touch it to activate it.

Edit to add:

re 'Yubikey Nano is a "thing you have", TouchID is a "thing you are".', I would argue that your finger is in fact a thing you have. The loss of a finger might change a little of who you are depending on the circumstances that led to you losing said finger, but these both fall into "thing you have" territory for me. I don't think it's wise to consider Touch ID much more than that, personally.

You're missing that the Yubikey Nano exists. You just leave it in the port. You don't need to remove it - you have to physically touch it to activate it in the same way that you'd have to touch the Touch ID sensor.

The parent comment didn't seem to say anything offensive. Why so hostile?

Calling it "consumer-grade RAM" is inaccurate - RAM is RAM. When you solder it to a board, you now have a DIMM that is carrying RAM chips. It's a semantic difference, but it's important.