morsecodist

This is kind of the point I am trying to make that sovereignty is somewhat of a spectrum and there are a lot of options for preserving parts of it.

I think the Westphalia thing is somewhat overblown there were lots of sovereignty analogs throughout human history all over the world before that.

HK always was bound to become a part of China

Why so? Do you think Monaco should be part of France? Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia? A lot of big countries respect the sovereignty of neighboring smaller countries, although that is unfortunately becoming less true now.

It isn't about colonialism. I have never seen anyone seriously argue it should go back to the British. It is about a framework to ensure they maintain their rights. It would be great if that looked like expanded rights for all of China but it can also look like some degree of sovereignty, which was in place for quite some time.

I would never ask a question on stack overflow because half the time it seemed to be flagged a dupe or for some other reason and it brought you closer to being disallowed to ask. I actually have answered a good amount of stack overflow questions to get a higher score but the overzealous question shutdowns totally had a chilling effect.

I see this advice a lot in various forms. I think people are probably too conflict averse on average so there is some merit to it but there are limits. I feel like there are a lot of times in my life where just moving on or being diplomatic has been the right call.

The manager example is a good case study. There are a lot of examples here where there might be genuine repercussions for raising an issue with a manager. I wouldn't give this as blanket advice.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a simple rule about whether or not you should raise an issue and it needs to be decided case by case.

This is such an interesting comment thread because people have such wildly different opinions and from my perspective the entire disagreement just comes from company size.

I am a "CTO" and I always put that in air quotes because I have one direct report and I spend the lion's share of my time doing IC work. I know what I do is not what people picture when they hear the title and I feel weird saying it. I use it because I do have to make the strategic technical decisions, there is no one else. When people are marketing technical B2B SaaS I am the one they are looking for.

From my perspective there just isn't nearly enough for me to do as a CTO to justify me not coding. If I were to hire someone just to manage them that would be an unjustifiable expense at this point. But I also get that as soon as we get to a reasonable size this would be totally unsustainable.

I am pretty skeptical of how useful "memory" is for these models. I often need to start over with fresh context to get LLMs out of a rut. Depending on what I am working on I often find ChatGPT's memory system has made answers worse because it sometimes assumes certain tasks are related when they aren't and I have not really gotten much value out of it.

I am even more skeptical on a conceptual level. The LLM memories aren't constructing a self-consistent and up to date model of facts. They seem to remember snippets from your chats, but even a perfect AI may not be able to get enough context from your chats to make useful memories. Things you talk about may be unrelated or they get stale but you might not know which memories your answers are coming from but if you did have to manage that manually it would kind of defeat the purpose of memories in the first place.

When just a few years ago, having AI do these things was complete science fiction!

This is only because these projects only became consumer facing fairly recently. There was a lot of incremental progress in the academic language model space leading up to this. It wasn't as sudden as this makes it sound.

The deeper issue is that this future-looking analysis goes no deeper than drawing a line connecting a few points. COVID is a really interesting comparison, because in epidemiology the exponential model comes from us understanding disease transmission. It is also not actually exponential, as the population becomes saturated the transmission rate slows (it is worth noting that unbounded exponential growth doesn't really seem to exist in nature). Drawing an exponential line like this doesn't really add anything interesting. When you do a regression you need to pick the model that best represents your system.

This is made even worse because this uses benchmarks and coming up with good benchmarks is actually an important part of the AI problem. AI is really good at improving things we can measure so it makes total sense that it will crush any benchmark we throw at it eventually, but there will always be some difference between benchmarks and reality. I would argue that as you are trying to benchmark more subtle things it becomes much harder to make a benchmark. This is just a conjecture on my end but if something like this is possible it means you need to rule it out when modeling AI progress.

There are also economic incentives to always declare percent increases in progress at a regular schedule.

Will AI ever get this advanced? Maybe, maybe even as fast as the author says, but this just isn't a compelling case for it.

Any physical process can be interpreted as computation. Computation is in the eye of the beholder. Interpreting life as computation doesn't really add anything new we are just describing a model that we came up with.

In general, I think the dependency hate is overblown. People hear about problems with dependencies because dependencies are usually open source code used by a lot of people so it is public and relevant. You don't hear as much about problems in the random code of one particular company unless it ends up in a high profile leak. For example, something like the heartbleed bug was a huge deal and got a lot of press, but imagine how many issues we would be in if everyone was implementing their own SSL. Programmers often don't follow best practices when they do things on their own. That is how you end up with things like SQL injection attacks in 2025.

Dependencies do suck but it is because managing a lot of complicated code sucks. You need some way to find issues over time and keep things up to date. Dependencies and package managers at least offer us a path to deal with problems. If you are managing your own dependencies, which I imagine would mean vendoring, then you aren't going to keep these dependencies up to date. You aren't going to find out about exploits in the dependencies and apply them.

I am extremely skeptical of this mathematical model to predict history thing. There's just not enough history to do it and you bake in your biases when you go through the qualitative historical record and try to assign it to quantities. A lot of people analyze history and claim they figured it out and they've come to different conclusions and none of them have made reliable, specific conditions. If you say something bad will happen at some point in the future you'll probably be right but it's not enough to call it science.

Fair I stopped using Go pre-generics so I am pretty out of date. I just remember having this conversation about generics and at the time there was a large anti-generics group. Is it a lot better with generics? I was worried that a lot of the library code was already written pre-generics.

I find the way people talk about Go super weird. If people have criticisms people almost always respond that the language is just "fine" and people kind of shame you for wanting it. People say Go is simpler but having to write a for loop to get the list of keys of a map is not simpler.

This just makes it even more frustrating to me. Everything good about go is more about the tooling and ecosystem but the language itself is not very good. I wish this effort had been put into a better language.

These people's theories (except Turing) are highly speculative predictions about the future. They could be right but they are not analogous to the predictions we get out of epidemiology where we have had a lot of examples to study. What they are doing is not science and it is way more reasonable to doubt them.

I honestly can't tell if you're being facetious. Maybe I suck at writing and don't properly understand sarcasm but unfortunately I'm only human.

I don't agree that it is because of the "quality" of the video. The issue with AI art is that it lacks intentional content. I think people like art because it is a sort of conversation between the creator and the viewer. It is interesting because it has a consistent perspective. It is possible AI art could one day be indistinguishable but for people to care about it I feel they would need to lie and say it was made by a particular person or create some sort of persona for the AI. But there are a lot of people who want to do the work of making art. People are not the limiting factor, in fact we have way more people who want to make art than there is a market for it. What I think is more likely is that AI becomes a tool in the same way CGI is a tool.

I'm very skeptical of this psychoanalysis of people who disagree with you. Can't people just be wrong? People are wrong all the time without it being some sort of defense mechanism. I feel this line of thinking puts you in a headspace to write off anything contradictory to your beliefs.

You could easily say that the AI hype is a cope as well. The tech industry and investors need there to be be a hot new technology, their career depends on it. There might be some truth to the coping in either direction but I feel you should try to ignore that and engage with the content of whatever the person is saying or we'll never make any progress.

I do feel that there is a routine bias on HN to underplay AI

It's always interesting to see this take because my perception is the exact opposite. I don't think there's ever been an issue for me personally with a bigger mismatch in perceptions than AI. It sometimes feels like the various sides live in different realities.

I think it's fair to point out that they were never intended to be a good framework for aligning robots and humans. Even in his own stories they lead to problems. They were created precisely to make the point that encoding these things in rules is hard.

As for practical problems they are extremely vague. What counts as harm? Could a robot serve me a burger and fries if that isn't good for my health? By the rules they actually can't even passively allow me to get harmed so should they stop me from eating one? They have to follow human orders but which human? What if orders conflict?

There are some great native apps out there and a lot of them do things you couldn't do on the web, but nowhere near close seems like a stretch to me. There are some great web apps out there. And while there are great native apps made with love there are also perfunctory, rushed, clunky ones that could have just been a website.

People often overlook some of the functional UX the web brings to the table. For example: on the web I get consistent search and text highlighting behavior, consistent notifications, consistent navigation behavior (back buttons, history), I can tab to focus (usually), and I can use plugins to customize the content. Even the idea that you can reset the application state with a refresh is something I wish I had on some native apps.

I totally agree. I don't get why people feel so strongly that native apps are better. The web technologies we have are great both from a developer experience perspective and a UX perspective. People hate on electron apps but I think this is mostly due to bloat from electron. I hope Tauri closes the gap it's been great for me so far.

This doesn't make any sense. When people say this they mean they want more social spending and they are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The budget is what it is, the administration has made it clear that keeping the deficit low has nothing to do with the level of social spending they are willing to do. Sending money won't really do anything.

I think this is fair. Untracked TODOs should be minimized but I think there is value in recording how some section of code could be improved even if you know you are unlikely to do it. I don't think the triple click thing is a good example because that seems like a bug to me.

An example from my codebase is that I implemented a daily scheduled job that may display inconsistent results during short time per day it is running. Realistically fixing this will never be worth my time, this is a transit app and it is scheduled to do this at night when the buses aren't running and it will only be inconsistent if they change the schedule after already publishing it for a given day which happens pretty much never. It is also a personal project with no issue tracking.

Eventually I will rewrite this loader logic to support multiple transit systems so it is good to have my notes of how I would do it better next time. Also, if this does result strange schedule behavior I would immediately go to this file and see my explanation of the flaws with my approach. Maybe I shouldn't call this a TODO but it seems like a good fit.

Not really. These other industries are evaluating people somehow. Whether it's vibes, connections, resume, or some sort of technical evaluation you'll have a grown adult evaluating you. Hiring will always feel a bit lame and arbitrary, you have limited time and information to pick someone. You're not going to be able to understand candidates fully and you'll probably pick wrong a fair bit. So we come up with criteria that's a bit arbitrary but you need at least some effort and smarts to meet them so it's at least a bit correlated with a good hire. I don't think the non technical methods are any more or less dignified.

I somewhat agree that there is a problem but there is a glimmer of hope. As these medical terms are used more in everyday speech they lose their medical connotations and just become new words for personality traits. A lot of people who casually describe things as ADHD are using it more as an adjective than a diagnosis. We have had medical terms make it into this usage before: moron, hysterical, humourous (we're going all the way back to the four humours).

AGI is a marketing term. It has no consistent definition. It's not very useful when trying to reason about AI's capabilities.

I don't doubt that we will be able to make a content machine. Honestly, we had that on tiktok before generative AI. But I feel like this kind of misses the point of art. The idea of art for me is on some level experiencing someone else's intention and connecting with others based on that. Generative models have no intention or experience so I am uninterested in what they have to say even if it is technically well executed.

Humans all have similar brains. Different hardware and algorithms have way more variance in strengths and weaknesses. At some points you bump up against the theoretical trade-offs of different approaches. It is possible that systems will be better than humans in every way but they will still have different scaling behavior.

Thanks for replying! I liked the article overall. I guess I read into something that wasn't really there.

Not considering each neighborhood is how we get here

I am not saying we shouldn't consider each area as important I just don't think we should structure policy so tiny areas are incentivized to fight each other and the loser is where everything "bad" gets built. Also I pointed to a clear mechanism by which this sort of thing leads to inequitable outcomes, what part of that do you disagree with?

But what is your solution? The section 8 housing or other universally unpopular projects have go somewhere. Do you think the SFH owners in the poor part of town want it in their backyard?

I feel like I have a solution here and you haven't proposed one. My point is that we should be more permissive with where we build affordable housing, including and especially in more exclusive areas. What is your solution?

I think towns or metro areas should come together, decide what they want for the region together, turn that into a set of rules that will bring about those outcomes, and then stick to those rules. If there are problems with the rules they can be revisited but not by making special exceptions for each individual project. I want to get close to John Rawls' veil of ignorance where people are setting rules based on what they think is fair and not based on their own interests. Obviously, it is impossible to achieve this ideal but I think a higher level conversation is more conducive to this kind of decision making.

Does it matter?

It totally matters because if it is the result of policy then it is something we can change. There are numerous costs. Yes the individual needs to pay for utility hookup but in general water systems and roads are more expensive per housing unit if each segment of shared infrastructure serves fewer people. Zoning policy in general increases the supply of single family homes relative to multi family homes, decreasing their cost. 30 year mortgages are guaranteed by the government and home appreciation gives home owners a huge tax exemption when they sell their home. These apply to condos as well but loans are difficult to get for some forms of multi-family housing and they still put their thumb on the scales in favor of home owners at the expense of renters who are much more likely to live in multi-family housing.