resdirector

So, when I code review, I have a super simple Cursor command that "orients" me in the PR:

* where does the change sit from a user perspective?

* what are the bookends of the scope?

* how big is the PR?

* etc.

Once I'm "in" and understand what it does, I pepper the AI with questions:

* Why did the author do this?

* I dont understand this?

* This looks funky, can you have a look?

* etc.

The more questions I ask, the more the AI will (essentially) go "oh, I didn't think of that, in fact, looks like the issue was way more serious than I first thought, let me investigate". The more I ask, the more issues AI finds, the more issues AI finds, the more issues I find. There's no shortcuts to quality control -- the human drives the process, AI is merely (and I hate to use this term but I will) a...force multiplier.

Is your chat app asynchronous? As in sending a public message for an offline user?

Ah, so DieWithMe is an interesting, but different concept.

With Bored Chat, it's simply a chat app where you interact via an iMessage like UI. The difference is that all your chat logs (your chat history) are viewable to the world on your profile page...and on a main "activity" feed.

So Bored Chat is basically chat, but with no privacy whatsoever!

I wonder if humans could, or should, help this evolutionary process along.

FWIW You may be interested in an app I'm building which allows people who work remotely (or in remote places) to socialize with other people who work remotely. The idea is to allow people such as yourself who are interested in tech to have "water cooler"-style conversations even if they are removed from the tech scene.

Feel free to give it a go: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/water-cooler-chat/id94476300...

You might find some interesting people on there to talk to, it's still early days and currently only my friends are using it so far, but we're a friendly, interesting bunch of people :)

Did anyone else get a brief surge of adrenaline thinking your username was for some reason on the front page of HN?

Happy to provide feedback on new UX -- my contact details are in my profile.

Hey...left-field idea for the ice-breaking problem: t-shirts with a list of all your likes and dislikes printed on them.

Instead of the clichéd "what do you do" it's "hey, you like NCIS too!". Easier, cheaper to test than an app.

It's a hobby. It seems you are falling into the trap of vanity metrics when paying attention to number of followers.

You've nailed it here (such an easy trap to fall into).

Thanks for all the replies, everyone, and sorry for the late response. Every reply here has been very helpful.

I'm not sure of the "swipe" idea translates well to professional networking.

"Swipe" seems more suited to making visceral fast (~1 second) decisions based on gut instinct, whereas networking requires >20 seconds when face-to-face and longer in a lower bandwidth environment such as an app.

Additionally when using the app it felt like I was "discarding" someone as I swiped them, which is not the right feeling.

The bigger problem with networking, I find, is breaking the ice. I'd pay good money to be able to intro myself to someone without resorting to a "networking hack".

This was published 18 months ago.

A subsequent publication[0][1] argues that their notion of "negative temperatures" is invalid as they used a flawed definition of entropy.

[0] http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=41283096248189415...

[1] http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/theo1/hanggi/Dunkel_Nature...

Clickable: http://tunein.com/radio/Technicolor-Web-Of-Sound-Redux-s2238...

This is a step in the right direction. I strongly believe that marijuana legalization is good for the economy -- personally I've come up with brilliant, practical ideas while stoned[0]. Many of which I have gone on to implement and generate wealth. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Think Steve Jobs and Apple etc.

[0] I hope the nomenclature evolves re marijuana. "stoned", "bong", "skunk", "chronic", etc conjure up images that are too tightly aligned with negative stereotypes IMO.

As the world slowly moves to a knowledge and innovation economy as opposed to a hard-graft economy of the last few millennia, I think we'll see a tipping point. Those with money/power will be increasingly made up of pro-legalization advocates.

I'd be surprised if there isn't full legalization in the US within the next twenty years. And books with titles such as: "How To Expand Your Business And Increase Your Revenue Through The Power Of Marijuana" on the best-seller list.

OT but IMO it's such a huge cost to the economy (and humanity) that marijuana is still taboo. The thought experiments that you describe, for me at least, are not only fun, but more often than not lead to practical, wealth-generating breakthroughs. I assume I'm not the only one.

I hope one day historians and economists will study the lost opportunity costs of the prohibition / taboo nature of marijuana.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.

As I mentioned in another comment, the broader (and bold) hypothesis here is that our passions and peeves play the strongest role in determining success of close working relationships.

If anyone here thinks this is an interesting hypothesis worth chasing AND/OR thinks they'll get along well with me (http://willwegetalong.site44.com/), I would absolutely love to chat to you.

Or if you simply know of someone who would be interested in investigating this hypothesis.

EDIT: big thankyou to all the comments here. Much good feedback that will go into v0.2

Different approaches to responsibility and how to treat others will kill a partnership; Different TV tastes, not so much.

Perhaps I listed way too much TV. The broader (and bold) hypothesis here is that our passions and peeves play the strongest role in determining success of close working relationships.

I don't watch that much TV, it just seems that way because I neglected to mention other interests.

i'm squarely on the friends end of the seinfeld-friends continuum, so i guess that wouldn't bode well for a partnership. =)

Don't get me started on Friends! That would rate five thumbs down for me ;P.

Re your larger point of the quiz only giving half (or a third) of the story, true, but I have a bold hypothesis that people who share strong passions and peeves often have similar motivations.

In other words, I hypothesize that our interests tell us more about who we are than we think. (That said, I perhaps listed too much TV!)

Good points.

FWIW one reason I went for a (very) strong TV angle is that it's a trade off between being too broad and too niche. As an example, I could have put down "The Chocolate Watchband" (awesome band from the 60s), but it'd be a long time before I found another person who shared that passion.

Also, of those whom I've worked very well with in the past have shared some very strong, similar interests in visual media (TV, movies), and much less so, sports, hobbies, or even books. A big "however", mind you: this is just an observation and/or hypothesis.

tl;dr TV ticked both the boxes of being non-niche and a strong discriminator.

Unfortunately I've come across as a TV obsessed junkie! :)

Haha, it's working ;)

Tech guy.

Yeah, good point, I'll consider adding more entrepreneur-centric info on.

(Out of interest, which TV shows? Or was just figure of speech?)

All three are necessary. But finding someone you fundamentally click with is the harder of the three, IMO. Followed by the entrepreneur spirit, followed by the skill set.

True, but I'm approaching it from a new angle, interests first, skills second.

I think this way is better, because even if there isn't a skill match, we'll still likely have an interesting conversation (presuming we bond over one or more of our passions or peeves). And I'll probably keep you in my Rolodex...who knows, maybe sometime later we'll have complimentary skill sets.

TV, I think, is a good discriminator. I could list "Objective C", "Node.js" etc, but sharing similar tech passions aren't as accurate at predicting compatibility.

I could well be completely wrong. I aim to find out.

Clickables:

http://www.paulgraham.com/startupfaq.html http://willwegetalong.site44.com/

He specialises in hard science fiction stories with mathematical and quantum ontology themes, including the nature of consciousness. Other themes include genetics, simulated reality, posthumanism, mind uploading, sexuality, artificial intelligence, and the superiority of rational naturalism over religion.

Might be of interest to the HN community.

Their method of removing happy posts is not the same as deliberately making people sad. Before the experiment it was highly plausible that people would become more happy if they saw less happy posts by others[0].

Moreover, I think companies should be doing more experiments like the FB one -- it's high time that human happiness be prioritized over other metrics such as profit, revenue, number of likes etc.

[0] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/01/the_a...

Facebook intentionally made thousands upon thousands of people sad.

Hang on. Wasn't the experiment to see whether users would post gloomier or happier messages respectively? This very different from intentionally making people sad.

Seconded. Diaspora is one of the best sci if books I've read. Highly recommend it (and all of Egan's work) to the HN community.