Or perhaps listing 3 different positions and claiming someone is between them is confusing…
Given they were directly responding to a quote of the confusing statement, perhaps they were not remarking on the actual position, but on the confusing nature of the description ?
Other than this hot take
Ivy League college students are, by definition, intelligent.
It’s an interesting read.
Personally I see LLMs as a tool like any other. You can use it to mass produce low quality slop, just as you can use it to help you produce a higher quality output.
I agree with this in principle, but I’d argue that it’s more like an industrial table saw than a hand saw.
Meaning the potential for damage is much greater with this particular tool (for various reasons) which means that it need proper training and experience, safeguards, maintenance and fail-safes to be used effectively (without doing yourself or others damage).
The potential damage of using this tool is a bit less immediate and obvious than an industrial table saw however, which means you should be extra careful.
Good spot, i should have said “truly believes” instead of “claims”.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
Scientifically, maybe? Because that’s what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.
But let’s assume yes for the purposes of this reply.
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject.
And context.
Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.
For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.
That’s a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.
But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.
That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
There’s a big assumption there that this is a binary.
Gravity control, doesn’t have to be binary.
It doesn’t even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.
But let’s say it’s magic, direct control.
In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off fully.
In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.
Which brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
Emphasis mine.
Subjectively?
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Yeah…
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Not really…to any of that.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I’m not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that’s within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it’s not a given.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Yep, that’s why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
I also doubt you’ve met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It’s entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
I wasnt suggesting it would be easy, in fact i think it would be rather difficult on both fronts.
My comment was more about the method by which this kind of thing was intended to be addressed.
I imagine this is a controversial opinion…but isn’t the idiomatic solution to this to either:
petition the mods to get this rule added and enforced
or
To start a community that enforces this rule and let it compete with this one.
Isn’t that the whole idea of federation?
The problem with automated tests is that they only test for the narrow slice of things you actually think to test for. They don’t cover the gamut of things you didn’t think to test for.
They also only test how you write them to test for, which means if you make a bad assumption somewhere along the way your tests can’t help you find it.
Indeed, which is why it’s an ever evolving suite of tests, as and when you come across problems and things that were missed, you add automated tests for them.
It’s not magic, you only get out what you put in, but it is automated, which means that if you do a reasonable job you have a lot less to worry about from that particular issue in the future and now you have a much quicker way of checking for it.
Peer reviews cover two very important things:
- Knowledge sharing and de-siloing
- Logic and assumption checking
A fresh set of eyes and a different perspective is just so important to writing robust, quality code.
Also agreed, and automated testing is a way to partially formalise that knowledge into something that can be checked quickly and deterministically (if you are doing it right).
As i said before it’s not magic and it’s not a replacement, it’s more of an augmentation to relieve some of the cognitive burden.
As with any other approach, it also has it’s downsides, there are ways to go about it that can be actively detrimental.
In my experience a well done (and maintained) automated suite is a boon to ongoing development.
hmm, i have mixed feelings about this.
If PRs arent being reviewed for hours or days thats a management problem.
This i agree with totally.
Whether or not it’s human resource based or policy based, it’s usually a failing of process and that’s generally a fault with management. in my experience anyway.
No amount of unit tests are a replacement for another set of eyes.
This though, while i wouldn’t compare PR’s to Unit testing in the first place there is some overlap in quality control.
If you have robust enough testing suites it can reduce the PR burden in a variety of ways, though most of them come down to automating away the need to catch so many logic and regression bugs.
That’s not to say reviews aren’t needed, they definitely are, it’s just automated testing does have an overlap.
Notice that i said testing suites though, that’s not just unit testing, that’s the whole CI testing caboodle.
TL;DR;
Why developers are abandoning Postman and its clones?
Enshittification
The rest of your reply aside, I do disagree with one point in particular.
Where is your linkedin or github profile showing projects before ~2022?
A github public profile and linkedin history are not reliable indicators of comparative programming competence.
I.e it’s entirely possible to be a competent programmer and also not want to participate in self marketing or promotion.
They are sometimes indicative of the soft skills that go along with being a programmer.
If you’re stuck at review you aren’t seeing 10x development, you’re seeing 10x code generation.
This is especially important because without the review/test/deploy part of the pipeline you aren’t actually seeing any progress towards business goals.
Once you do get these parts sorted, you can then look at what multiplier you’re seeing.
That’s not to say there isn’t an improvement in your workflow, just that you can’t say with any certainty what kind of improvement without measuring the end to end.
It might turn out that the rest of the pipeline is way easier , in which case your multiplier will be higher, it might also be much harder, in which case the multiplier will be lower.
I’m not taking shots, i mean it seriously, especially if you need to report any of this to the rest of the business.
edit : In addition, if it turns out that review is going to be a bottleneck you can get extra resource pointed in that direction which will benefit the workflow overall.
another edit: i would consider correctly managing the expectations of those you report to as a vital skill.
The are plenty of large companies that don’t use oracle.
Sure we did.
“Lines Of Code” is a good one, more code = more work so it must be good.
I recently had a run in with another good one : PR’s/Dev/Month.
Not only it that one good for overall productivity, it’s a way to weed out those unproductive devs who check in less often.
This one was so good, management decided to add it to the company wide catchup slides in a section espousing how the new AI driven systems brought this number up enough to be above other companies.
That means other companies are using it as well, so it must be good.
What you’re describing is skill atrophy, it’s just in skills you don’t value.
It’s also skill acquisition/reinforcement for skill you do value.
If its such a compelling feature set then opt-in shouldn’t be an issue.