our industry has existed on the cutting edge doing what's hard since its inception. it's just that there was a time when sending a piece of text across a wire was hard. Now that's easy, so we do more with the tools that make that easy. When what's hard today becomes easy we'll do that quickly with the tools that make it easy and then do more hard stuff. We can say we've achieved AGI when the tools are doing better on their own than a tool plus an engineer would do, and I think that's a long way off.
Exactly. This is how it's always been. LLMs make it easy to spit out boilerplate code, which drives the price of boilerplate down to free. But good engineers will add a lot more value to that which raises the bar for everyone. The things you can create with an LLM become boring and worthless (honestly they mostly already were before coding agents came out) and the hirable skills become everything else that engineers need to do.
if you're LOOKing for a MOVIE or a tv show 2 download and you don't want to mess with DOT TOrrent files then there are plenty of options but it's generally considered uncouth to link to them publicly and directly
thesis: every champion needs a rival to draw out the best in them
antithesis: there is nothing about the existence of any other person that changes what my best is or whether I deliver it
potential synthesis: I am my own perfect rival. I am right at my skill level, my career is a perfect parallel to my own, I don't need to look outside myself for a reason to improve and I can always do a little better than I did last time.
actual point: if I'm the best at what I do, and nobody is pushing to become better than me, I will stagnate because nobody else has exposed a better possible pinnacle.
This doesn't preclude that though. Maybe it's because I'm a weightlifter and while we compete with one another we really don't, but my own numbers can be my rival. In fact, they're a much more effective rival than anyone else at the gym because they can never be permanently beaten, they can never retire, they will always demand more. If I wake up tomorrow and through some miracle I'm the best weightlifter on earth and can bench a 1000 pounds, 1005 pounds exists whether someone else can lift that much or not. If you're Tom Brady you don't need Peyton Manning in order to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions, you need to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions. If your rival has a career-ending injury does that define your pinnacle? Not if you're actually in competition with yourself it doesn't.
This is very simply refuted: you're not one of the 5 strongest people in the world. Brady, Manning, were the best at what they do, top 5 in the world at the time they played and to this day.
When you're not competing with yourself, it's an entire world of difference.
what about everyone who uses Brady's system and also isn't the best? Does that refute Brady's system? Why choose the arbitrary cutoff point of top 5? Why focus on being the best when you'll definitely fail instead of focusing on being your best? If Brady could've been better if only he'd had a better rival does that indict this system?
My entire point is, fuck Bradys system. Someone will find a better one. Being pidenholed into weightlifting where there is only “one true way” is your blind spot.
the greatest i know of are interesting characters because they can invent rivals and adversity where none exists. this comes across oddly and makes for great stories about their mania for competition
We compare QBs because QBs are comparable. It's really difficult to build a narrative around the number of passes one person completes vs the number of tackles a different person dishes out to different people on different teams, but very easy and meaningful to compare completion percentages for two quarterbacks. It's also because QB is considered a leadership and decision-making role moreso than any other position on the field, and so the overall performance of the offense tends to be attributed to the team as a whole but the QBs are compared on the decisions they make on the field and the rest of the offensive units are compared on their ability to execute those decisions.
well yeah if you claim a war is justified because there have been wars between people in that area then every war is justified because warfare has been happening everywhere there have been humans since humans arrived
we're precedenting it in the united states. our government is deeply ideologically aligned with the people committing the vast majority of domestic terrorism in this country.
The vast majority of the government are full-time employees without any express political allegiance aside from whatever they happen to personally believe. I doubt they are "deeply ideologically aligned with...domestic terrorism" and most of them would probably physically assault you for suggesting they agreed with domestic terrorists in person.
I agree, but hackernews is evidently taking his side because any time I try to reply I get told I'm posting too often, even when its been hours since my last post.
Government employees don't have their own political alliances? Have you seen the american government anytime in the past 10 years? That's a very strange argument considering it's a commonly discussed issue in the current american political climate.
Chris Owens just interviewed Jeremy Corbyn and it was really revealing.
Jordan Chariton/Status Coup gets out to communities after the mainstream media leaves and misses the aftermath.
Democracy Now! has been following the atrocities in Gaza nearly every day with personal accounts from people on the ground.
Medhi Hasan, Sam Seder, Robert Reich, David Pakman, Meidastouch, Malcolm Nance, and Thom Hartmann to name a few.
Another one particular to Israel is The Salukie who is a half Arab Israeli Jew who goes undercover to West Bank refugee camps to show what's really going on and how everyday people are treated on all sides.
The Family by Jeff Sharlet is great for a look at the actual working process of the political Evangelical movement. i'll have to take a look at Hedges' book, thanks for recommending!
I already avoid devices that require subscription rather than allowing ownership. If someone decides to change the terms of the deal after I bought the device to gate previously accessible functionality behind a paywall I guarantee that they will never see another nickel of mine for the rest of our shared existence on this earth. I don't actually care that your costs exceed your revenue. Shut down then. It's your problem to price things in a way that pays for your costs as a business, not mine, and it's your problem to uphold agreements you made or to fail as a business.
This is fine if the device is stand-alone. But if its operation depends on any back end service, then your choice makes it inevitable that it will cease operating at some point in the future. Nobody, no matter how drugged-up their marketing folks are, is going to provide that service forever for no charge.
Then it makes an awful lot of sense to get that service for free/at a one-time cost until their marketing team sobers up, doesn't it? It's only a bait and switch if they switch before I get the bait.
