I find that writing good tests is my ticket to understanding the problem in depth, be careful about outsourcing that part. Plus from what I have seen LLM generated tests are often low quality.
Yep, I understand why let's release this one feature everywhere is a great lure and I do get annoyed when desktop vs mobile spotify gets features later or never. However, a phone is not a desktop capability wise and what we usually get is the power of the phone on a desktop, aka the lowest common denominator of capabilities.
This fetish we as an industry have to hide platform specifics makes us blind to the platform specific capabilities. Some software would be better off if it leaned into the differences instead of fighting them.
Framing man made climate change - aka the 6th mass extinction event - as a problem in search of a solution is by itself the very reason we won't "solve" it.
Trying to solve climate change in anything but a very narrow sense is like trying to perform humane torturing. One can either treat others humanely _or_ torture them. The two at the same time is impossible. The majority of conversations around climate change focus on doing the same things - modernity - but without the negative effects. Chasing a way to humanely torture children will not in fact stop the torturing of children. The goal is wrong! No amount of "solutions" will help you if they all aim to achieve the goal that itself is the root cause of the issues.
Science has a massive blind spot, one it can't fathom exists. For many today, especially on HN science is closer to a religion than what they themselves view it as. This is not a particularly popular believe since it contradicts a lot of nicely build up self-perceptions. Science can't figure out what is worthwhile pursuing and what isn't _without_ biased input at the very beginning of that chain. Science can't reason about the limits to it's power since it assumes that everything can be analyzed and broken into smaller problems. The fact that science is a tool, one profoundly incompatible with certain types of very real properties of our world does not fit into the religion of science. "Science can solve all problems and if it hasn't we just haven't tried hard enough". Science is a hammer that insists it is the right tool for every problem and if it doesn't work well you're just holding it wrong.
I was born into and shaped by a science and enlightenment religion world-view and lack proper words to describe the issues with it, but I feel them.
I sympathize with your feeling. All these questions are not going away, science can't do it, religion doesn't have those answers either. The religion of science offers the worst of both worlds. We are struggling to see something beyond these two options but I think there must be some other approach.
There was also Abiy Ahmed, who went on to commit a genocide [1] the following year in Ethopia, it's less talked about than the one Palestine. Imagine giving Benjamin Netanyahu the nobel peace price, what a joke of an institution.
To be fair in this case, they gave it to him for making peace and ending a long-running conflict. A peace which didn't last evidently and was overshadowed by his later actions. Not unlike Aung San Suu Kyi.
> I myself am saving a small fortune on design and photography and getting better results while doing it.
Tell me you have bland taste without telling me you have bland taste. But if your customers eat it up and your slop manages to stand out in sea of slop, who am I to dislike slop.
Salting your ground water is also a second-order effect. The way you put that statement into quotes shows that you value human well being over everything else. Personally I don't. Life on earth is a co-op and we don't win by being the last ones standing, as we are desperately trying right now.
This is utterly ridiculous. When has the last time been when we humans did a process in an ecosystem at industrial scale and it _didn't_ make life worse for the local co-op players? We don't know _how_ it will mess things up, but we know that it _will_ mess things up.
> We will keep mining for these resources so where should we do it?
We don't have to keep mining, yes our lifestyle is incompatible with reducing mining output. But why is our lifestyle - or modernity in a more general sense - taken as non-negotiable? The trolley problem has a solution, stop the train.
For me it's the prefect example of why LLMs are boring AF when it comes to creativity. Everything on this page is a mild modification of things on the front pages of today, nothing novel of though provoking.
Hey AI please create art, and it gives you a hue shifted Mona Lisa. I find that supremely boring.
As a mid/senior level engineer I feel the same - this kind of content just plain sucks, and seeing Gemini respond with the karma comment is icing on the cake.
Not that long ago on HN there were things being posted regularly about hardware and software that I would define as no less than insane side projects. Projects that people using LLMs today couldn't do in a lifetime. Those posts are still up here and there, but very few compared to the past. They were creative and hard, if not impossible feats.
So when I see content like this post, with comments underneath it saying "it's the greatest AI content they've ever seen," it's a sad day. Maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon hah!
reply