topham

It tends to the mean. You can get it to do that less, but it's an inherent bias

How many had slaves? How many had business partners with slaves?

I don't have a problem using AI.

I also acknowledge, when doing so, how I use it.

But, literally typing in a prompt and then massaging its output and then claiming ownership of its plan? Yeah, no.

It doesn't matter if the original article is supposed to be satire. I've been using AI to do some coding, I've been using it to help me plan a much larger project. It's a tool, and it's useful; but I am in control of the project, not letting the AI control me.

Meanwhile in my day job, I've had multiple coworkers pump shit into AI and regurgitate the answer without critical thought. They are letting it make decisions for them without validating it first even.

It's not really satire if we're already dealing with this attitude.

"prepared to do what I do every single day in my actual scientific practice: type a prompt and receive a coherent, well-structured response that I would then lightly edit and present as my own thinking."

So, plagiarism. Daily.

The hero worship of him makes me physically ill, always has.

He did cost people their jobs though, so I guess he's a good person.

If it crashes it's a security issue.

It should adept reject what it does not expect.

Browsers won't.

No, really, they simply won't implement it.

Which means you have to structure everything around multiple scenarios anyway.

So, I need to update all the tools to support QUERY, or I need to update all the tools to support GET/body.

So, either way, I need to update all the tools.

Just fix GET.

Fixing GET would be easier.

And yes,it would be fixing a flawed interpretation of what should be implemented.you are, by definition GETting something.

Tools dropping body from GET by default are violating the spec today.

Rules configured to drop it are just that, temporarily configured constraints readily modified.

Adding QUERY will make it unpredictable in effectively the same manner as GET/body. It'll take even longer to resolve it though.

QUERY won't be supported by them either.

So, change is required. Just change GET to allow for body and move on.

Most of the systems that are blocking GET/body could be easily tweaked to allow it. Today. As is.

QUERY will likely need firmware updates, core engine updates, etc.

Meanwhile, tweaking GET is a rule change.

Comment-driven development may be a useful design exercise, but calling it the only approach that follows engineering principles misunderstands engineering. Engineers don’t stop at documenting assumptions—they validate them.

Nothing to discuss.

Don't do this. Ever.

If your browser crashes it's not the site, it's your browser.

There's a broken idea that AI know Python because they're written in Python.

Not how any of it works.

No. "This program reflects the enduring company we want to build. It applies to all full-time employees meeting performance expectations on their work anniversary. The longer someone stays at Lovable, the more deeply they understand the company, contribute to its momentum, and shape its culture,” Maryanne Caughey, lead of Lovable’s people team, told TechCrunch."

So when they wish to not increase the payroll significantly they'll downrate everyone at the annual review.

Basically, it's exactly how you create a toxic culture.

The site isn't violating your privacy.

Contrast is a violation of accessibility guidelines.

The problem with it is you didn't solve your biggest actual problem, you just haven't had a problem bite you in the ass yet so you think your problem is solved.

EA presented their numbers for their online store. They were making something like 12%, and losing money.

They ran it at a loss and try to use its existence to declare everyone else overcharging. Apple, Google, Steam. Meanwhile, they were unable to make money, just proving they don't know how business works.

The fact that most people think the Tab key is the correct choice is a perfect example of why it was not.

It had a purpose, and it got hijacked and made its actual purpose more difficult to use.

It's not dissimilar to Apples initial Touch Bar and then removing the Escape key.

Average user might never use that key; average developer doesn't got long without using that key for its purpose.

Nope. Tokens aren't what you think they are.

"either literally hates AI or has been driven at least a little crazy by it. It's a pretty darn easy choice for me (and most people I imagine)."

Careful, your bias is showing.

This.

Most designers are designing for their customer, their customer is the one paying their salary/commission/contract.

If you're major concern is copilot : Microsoft sucking up your codebase, you better not be producing open source applications anywhere.

Not a single open source license will protect you. (And it won't help even if they add an exclusion clause for AI).

Sigh. Bane of my existence is any service which does this.

My org theoretically makes hundreds of millions, unfortunately none of that money is ours. So I get forced into a procurement process for anything that costs more than (ridiculously small limit), and get stuck using the worst in class because it's cheaper.

Not really. Both address different sources of pain, and do so using different processes.

Ibuprofen is a Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) that reduces pain and inflammation, while acetaminophen does not. (Acetaminophen is believed to act mainly in the brain rather than at the site of injury).

Ibuprofen- Fundamentally, if the pain is caused by inflammation, reducing the immune systems response to it can reduce pain, but if the pain is more acute it won't make a dent.

With acetaminophen, taking more isn't a solution in most cases, you need another method to reduce the pain further if it doesn't achieve its goal.

(That's why it's combined with things like codeine, which affects the brain in a different way for an additive effect)

There are some that are very hard to find as a single ingredient. Recently I was purchasing a medication for back pain, I had a choice as to which other ingredient I wanted, but I didn't have the choice of none. I picked the combined ingredient I don't like to take, because I wouldn't be adding it on top.

I did toss on the other option, stand alone, at one point so I could get some sleep.

It left the medication I was more comfortable taking as an add-on option if things got bad enough. (This particular medication has much lower risk of overdose, so if I got stupid and took it again there would be no significant additional risk.)

It's ironic, but taking the combined medication with a known higher risk of its own was better than taking the lower risk medication.

One was controlled, higher risk, taken at specific times, while the other was taken in addition, on demand, as required.

The right tool for the right job. When it comes to medication, in the right dosage.

I'm aware of acetaminophen's down sides, and yet recently I was taking it combined with 2 other medications at the time.

Why? Because all three medications are recommended for dealing with the issue I had. (Alone and in combination)

The moment it wasn't helping further? Done.

There is this broken idea, particularly apparent in North America, but in western society that more is better for many things. It's not.

More pain killers don't do anything if they max out the relief they can give you, overloading their mechanism doesn't reduce anything, but taxing your liver or your kidneys.

All medications are potentially toxic, your body wants to dispose of them. In appropriate dosages they will benefit you, but more isn't inherently better.

Even water can kill you in sufficient quantity.

We do the same with diet; where someone declares one ingredient in a meal healthier than another; it isn't. A single ingredient isn't better or worse for you in a meal. Your diet however can be good or bad; over time that matters.

This is true, and illusionary at the same time.

While our precise perception of red may not match, the interplay between colors is such that people perceived them to go together, or clash, etc, in a somewhat consistent fashion.

This means that, over the general population the perception of color is very similar from person to person. Ignoring genetic defects.