Interesting that the author flags what is actually one of my pet peeves ...
> [Snapshots] get created automatically, often during deletion workflows, and nobody thinks to look for them.
creating random backups of things you are shutting down "just in case" that you must then remember to go back and delete. It's especially annoying if you stood up an EC2 instance or whatever, realized you messed up the configuration and immediately shut it down. Now you have a pile of poop running up your bill that you need to find and delete.
> If I wanted to read what an LLM thinks, I could just ask it.
and
> Or do I want an insightful, well-thought-out response, even if it is LLM-enhanced?
What is the difference? What's the line between these two?
The prompt: "Analyze <opinion> and respond" is pretty clearly "I would just ask it."
and, the prompt: "here's my comment, please ONLY the check the grammar and spelling" would probably be ok.
What about prompt:"I disagree with using LLMs for commenting at all for <reasons>. Please expound on this and provide references and examples". That would explode the word count for this site.
1. "Here is my answer to a comment. Give me the strongest argument against it."
2. "I think xyz. What are some arguments for and against that I may not have thought of."
3. "Is it defensible for me to say that xyz happened because of abc?"
All of these would help me to think through an issue. Is there a difference between asking a friend the above vs. an LLM? Do we care about provenance or do we care about quality?
The difference is in the journey to find the answer, rather than outsourcing it to man or machine. Spending more time reflecting before first post will often answer the easy questions so you can formulate more thoughtful questions.
> Is it wildly uneducated to not know any of the games you mentioned? I didn’t realize education covered less known video games?
Yes. It is "wildly uneducated" to have, and express, strong opinions about ANY field of endeavour where you are unfamiliar with large parts of that field.
If you haven't heard of the modern roguelike genre you've probably been living under a rock, it seems like every other game these days at least calls itself such. Usually the resemblance to Rogue is so remote that it strains the meaning of the term, but procedural generation of levels is almost universal in this loosely defined genre.
Elite is a bit more obscure, but really anybody who aims to be familiar with the history of games should recognize the name at least. Metroidvania isn't a game, but is a combination of the names of Metroid and Castlevania and you absolutely should know about both of those.
Powermonger is new to me.
And while the comment in question didn't mention it, others have: Minecraft. If you're not familiar with Minecraft you must be Rip Van Winkle. This should be the foremost game that comes to mind when anybody talks about procedural generation.
The person you’re replying to has only posted two short comments in this thread.
The reason a few different people are arguing this point is because it is in fact wrong, or at least poorly expressed, to refer to someone’s unfamiliarity with some aspect of a field like the gaming market as “wildly uneducated.”
Ironically, the person using that phrase is demonstrating a lack of understanding of its common meaning, suggesting that they may be a better fit for the word “uneducated”. See e.g: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uneducated
> What is going on right now?
As Wittgenstein put it, we’re playing language games.
I can see how you allowed your own stalking tendencies to confuse yourself, but I wasn't referring to that.
Your comment made it sound as though they were being unreasonable in this thread. I don't see that in the two short comments you responded to. Perhaps you were having a bad day.
My clients have been experiencing this forever; the logs SAY "temporarily rate limited due to IP reputation." but really the emails are never going to get delivered. I have to get MailChimp or Mailgun to rotate the IPs.
It looks like all it takes is one person to mark your email as spam, even by accident. Note that these are mailing lists which they signed up for in MailChimp case OR transactional emails in the Mailgun case.
It's only hotmail/outlook that we constantly have this issue with, Google etc. are all fine.
Often these "spam" reports by end users are just accidental clicks as well. Many of the abuse reports we get are like an email from someone's Mum and visibly legitimate. At other times there are users who use the Report Spam function as a kind of inbox management tool - a way of moving mail away so they don't have to see it because Trash or Delete or whatever is just further away from their pointer.
I tell my friends and family to never click unsubscribe links, unless they had proactively subscribed. Buying something from a company that requires an email does not count. unsolicited marketing emails are spam and should be treated as such. Double so if that company sends marketing emails disguised behind support@company.com.
No, sending marketing from support emails is almost certainly trying to game spam filters. Marketing@company.com would work for the allow replies purpose.
"Report spam" is quicker and easier than "unsubscribe".
Gmail added a popup asking the user if they want to unsubscribe when flagging a newsletter with the appropriate unsubscribe headers, so it must be common enough to warrant Gmail developer attention.
Thing is, unsubscribe links are often an "inform spammers that this mail address is in use" link. Even the ones Gmail offers up.
If I didn't click their button to subscribe, I'm not clicking their button to unsubscribe. Who's to say they won't just "sign me up" again after a while? In fact I know several large US corporations which routinely sign you up for notifications again after a few months.
If you didn't click the button, then of course, you don't send the unsubscribe message.
If you did subscribe to a newsletter and no longer want to receive it (which is the majority of these cases), then the unsubscribe action is the logical thing to do.
> If you did subscribe to a newsletter and no longer want to receive it (which is the majority of these cases), then the unsubscribe action is the logical thing to do.
Agreed. I was an early outlook.com user (was working at MS when it launched, I think internal users got slightly early access allowing me to claim a nicer name than my Gmail) but despite having well over a decade of accounts tied to it got so angry at certain messages never appearing that a couple of years ago I reversed the flow of forwarding and swapped to another account as my primary.
I always thought of outlook.com as a rebranding of Hotmail (which itself had been continually evolving, was probably actually “Live” at that point), I would expect it is the same (ever evolving) infrastructure.
In which case, people like me with an @hotmail.com address from the 90’s were much earlier users of the outlook.com email boxes than when the domain was “launched” by Microsoft.
But street crime is often a symptom of the "much broader and insidious effects of corporate crime": social systems stripped of resources by politicians to provide grants to baseball stadiums, police patrols in quiet wealthy streets but abandoning poorer quarters, tax incentives to companies that then pay their employees so little they are a burden on the food security systems, mental health care priced out of reach for the poor so they end up homeless and violent.
> That would still be a strange use case for what gets called an "API key".
The problem that you, and many people are having in this thread, is that you are typing "API key" but, in your head, you're thinking "private API key". API keys can be secret or public, and many services have matching pairs of secret and public keys (Stripe, Chargify, etc. etc. etc.)
There should be an alternative version of Poe's Law where the view being parodied is so common, so ludicrous and associated with bad faith actors that it wraps back around to the person deserves all the ridicule and an assumption that they are a bad actor.
Like, we get to assume it's a Motte and Bailey or Schrödinger’s Joke.
People also starved to death if there was a late frost or potato blight.
When I was a kid we had an half acre potato patch a quarter acre vegetable garden. It was a fuck ton of work. It was only possible to keep up because my brother and I did most of the weeding, watering and assorted up keep during our summer "holidays"
I wouldn't wish a subsistence farming lifestyle on anyone.
> Has anyone else considered that producing code faster isn't necessarily a good thing?
This has been an relentless goal of the industry for my entire 40 year career.
> At a point you're more work for your self/organization because unless you get everything perfect the first time you're creating more work than you're resolving.
Nothing is correct the first time (or rarely). Accelerating the loop of build, test, re-evaluate is a good thing.
I think you captured yet. Not many people agree but the real world metrics speak the truth, and that is trying and failing faster gets you further then methodological planning and structured approaches.
There IS experimental evidence on this and anyones anecdotal opinion is instantly blown to smithereens by the fact that this was tested and producing code faster is provably better.
> [Snapshots] get created automatically, often during deletion workflows, and nobody thinks to look for them.
creating random backups of things you are shutting down "just in case" that you must then remember to go back and delete. It's especially annoying if you stood up an EC2 instance or whatever, realized you messed up the configuration and immediately shut it down. Now you have a pile of poop running up your bill that you need to find and delete.
reply