kubanczyk

ááattsistaawa means "rabbit, hare" for those who prefer real words (language of Blackfoot Indians, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A1%C3%A1attsistaa-)

At least in this configuration ads are separate from answers.

As a frog would say: at least the heat is separate from water, for now.

Nothing in this list implies "post-modernist", and post-marxism does not imply "marxist".

On Linux.

Look for `NoDefaultCurrentDirectoryInExePath` if you want to learn about Windows.

I'm pretty nuclear

I'm atomic, FWIW.

how having nuclear power prevents vulnerability to direct attack?

OP alluded to a well-known bonus capability of nuclear power plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239#Production

you can obviously just decide who has sex with your wife

That's your fantasies, not author's. He merely implied that one can obviously decide whom to allow to fuck one's wife. He hasn't implied that wife's consent is unnecessary or automatic.

I've checked RFC 1738 and it's not the case. The only standard for "+" is:

(RFC 1866) specifies that space characters should be encoded as `+` in application/x-www-form-urlencoded content-type key-value pairs (see paragraph 8.2.1, subparagraph 1).

From https://stackoverflow.com/a/40292770

Sludge metal, where else...

I see Tiamat at Goth Metal.

Looking around at evidence, only the ones with somewhat cute eyes can qualify for empathy. Bad luck if someone is a grass or an amoeba, but machines will be just fine.

Philosophers may squint at the suffering-in-itself long and hard, but I doubt they'll affect waking/extinguishing empathy of the masses. Exploring the suffering that fails our empathy (e.g. suffering of a wheat plant harvested) seems a highly abstract task; more abstract than high mathematics.

An LLM containing the information doesn’t take away from the book being available at the library.

What if there are less libraries? Will LLMs lead to more or less libraries?

this is trivial to prove

Please don't forget to state the axioms before building the proof.

Sure. Historically, at times people had free trade. At times we had no monopolies at all. At times there were really few laws. We had democracy and free speech and more. Various components of "The West" had been tried before.

All these did not compare with the sheer effect of capitalism: let's concentrate the production, let's scale it so big that every worker will become a hyper-narrow specialist. You bet it's unsexy take today, but it was universally understood in Lenin's times that it's a path not possible/feasible to withdraw from. That's the one magic ingredient that seems absolutely required.

Hmm, sounds close to "shut up and mind your own business because sure I know better" so I'm keen to upvote it.

The reasoning behind Gentan was that a landless peasantry was more likely to revolt.

So, it was an anti-revolutionary policy. Which at that time of history worked as well as an anti-communist policy.

Unsurprisingly the Soviet Union killed the kulak model and moved to collective farming[0], which was arguably actually communistic.

Soviet Union, whatever it had preached, implemented state capitalism - concentration of the means of production under a single owner.

It's important for me to use words precisely. If somebody implies, for example, that capitalism is the opposite of communism, that's just snatching the words and waving them like banners.

breaking capitalism

It seems non sequitur. This hypothetical scenario sounds like entrenching capitalism, because it would concentrate capital even more.

It would probably weaken democracy and weaken free market (esp. the job market), yes.

society will collapse before then because of said breaking of capitalism itself

Or, maybe the society would continue to exist with even more inequality? And, of course, much changed from what it is today.

The Settler unit was a big eared bat

You validate my feelings. I always knew that at heart.

My gut says something simple is missing that makes all of the difference.

We have too much code - languages to program machines.

We need a new different language now.

A plan.md, written in what... legalese English? Really? Am I back in 1897? People committing that to vcs, sheesh...

Ads as a concept are not evil.

Sticking a piece of steel between two wooden planks is not inherently evil. Until we declare it to be unethical in some settings, and codify a law against "breaking and entering".

Same with ads.

You know what else strongly disincentivized legitimate contributions from people?

Having your code snatched and its copyright disregarded, to the benefit of some rando LLM vendor. People can just press "pause" and wait until they see whether they fuel something that brings joy to the world. (Which it might in the end. Or not.)

There is no meaningful solution to this, besides just this one exception.

if something looks like crud, it probably is crud

Yes, technically, but you've probably meant cruft here.

The first powered aircraft fatality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hermann_W%C3%B6lfert and his mechanic Robert Knabe, 1897

Also there's Hyrox, newer and lighter than Crossfit.

do you enjoy the "micro" of getting bits of code to work and fit together neatly, or the "macro" of building systems that work?

These are not toys. I want to make money. The customers want feature after feature, in a steady stream. It's bad business if the third or fourth feature takes ages. The longer stream, the better financially.

That the code "works" on any level is elementary, Watson, what must "work" is that stream of new features/pivots/redesigns/fixes flowing.

RTFA

Sigh. Is there any LLM solution for HN reader to filter out all top-level commenters that hadn't RTFA? I don't need the (micro-)shitstorms that these people spawn, even if the general HN algo scores these as "interesting".

Everyone updates their belief

Uh oh. How does frequentist model define "belief" and "updating a belief"?

Companies (C-suites) do not actually want for their worker pool (humans + agents) to stay constant in time, there is no reason for it to stay constant in time. C-suites have very different worries.

And "cost center" is a lie from Outsourcing Era, forget about it.

I call out false dilemma. OP probably defines "code" as one of the languages precise enough to be suited for steering Turing machines. Thus, "code" is not the opposite of "prompt". They are apples and oranges.

Lawyers can code in English, but it is not to layperson's advantage, is it?

And for example, if you prompt for something to frobnicate biweekly, there is no intelligence today, and there will never be, to extract from it whether you want the Turing machine to act twice a week or one per two weeks. It's a deficiency of language, not of intelligence.

It's how a middle manager can improve its standing, so the Junior will be a thing in bigger orgs for quite a while.