> but an interruption can be a lot less disruptive compared to getting nerd sniped.
Theoretically yes. Practically, folks who avoid small talk deliberately usually have enough awareness to not interrupt unless they need your time. But yes, directness without judgment is bad.
Ironically, the author fails to apply that judgment themselves and wastes a ton of words on unnecessary and/or bad examples.
And, more importantly, they miss the core point of Crocker's rule: Invoking it doesn't mean you get to tell other people how to communicate. You just tell them they're not responsible for your emotional/mental state.
If those extra details upset OP, maybe they lack the maturity to invoke that rule.
> Practically, folks who avoid small talk deliberately usually have enough awareness to not interrupt unless they need your time.
It’s not whether you need my time it’s where it falls in my priorities which you do not know. By essentially not asking they will get it wrong more, in both directions.
I wish we'd distinguish between bullshit and clearly identified things that _may_ be future threats.
The linked post contains a whopping lie - "What does it mean for the open source ecosystem that 90% of our open source supply chain can currently be recreated in seconds with today's AI agents"
It can't. Not even close. Please, do show a working clean-room implementation of a major opensource package. (Not left-pad)
We really need to stop hyperventilating and get back to reality.
Depends on the size you want to tackle. Let's shoot for MIT licensed or similar, so we don't have to do the unethical thing.
ESLint or Webpack would probably be attempts that are decently sized for a challenge.
Cheerio would be a bit smaller.
Chalk is probably close to the absolute lower bound of what's even meaningful. (You'd likely just regenerate a package that size from scratch instead of wondering about compat)
There's a lot of 'single serve' software being written now by AI. People using Claude Code to make stuff that solves problems they have. It's wild watching people who don't know how to code just use it to solve problems they have. Even if the solutions can be considered awkward by traditional software engineering standards, to the people just looking to solve their problems, that doesn't matter, so long as it works. I'm a software engineer by trade and don't know shit about ML, but I want a nice tool to be able to do RLHF / DPO on Z-Image, so I'm working with Claude to build one, and so far it can use ComfyUI to generate the image pairs, and allows you to pick A vs. B then start a training run with layer offloading enabled so it fits in 16GB VRAM, and I haven't finished a training run yet, but steps are increasing and loss is changing so... I dunno... I see lots of software being created that wasn't before.
These are all local, though - if ideas were all that mattered, we'd see widely available ones, too.
I am not seeing them. (I would love to be proven wrong, because "how well does this work for not-one-off software" is a really important question for me)
If they are "indistinguishable" from those book covers, I strongly suggest visiting an optometrist.
You may not enjoy modern art, and that's fine - but most of it runs circles around modern book covers. The latter are optimized to grab attention, without any artistic merit. They're the equivalent of shouting loudly.
Modern art may be the equivalent of speaking in esperanto or lojban to you, but at least it's still trying to say something.
No, luminism and romanticism are the equivalent of esperanto or lojban. Modern art is pre-verbal vocalizations, after it had deconstructed language because having syntax and pronunciation are unoriginal and "academic", and fooled itself that higher language is no longer worth exploring. What is it trying to say - how severely language can be mutilated while still sparking some semblance of an idea in a sufficiently imaginative listener? Glorified Rorschach blots. I'll let MoMA make my case for me:
I mean, let's take the easy lay-up - why Mondrian's "Composition No. II, with Red and Blue" actually is a very important painting: (https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79816 from your list)
- It's a major transition point in abstract art, moving from painting that still have an echo of representation to the purely abstract. You might not like it, it's still an important part of art history. It's talking (with fairly sophisticated language, if you're able to listen) about art in and of itself. About the removal of nuance in favor of structure. About the use of white space.
- It influenced and shaped modern architecture, via Bauhaus and "International Style" skyscrapers. That painting (and Mondrian's approach) shaped every major modern downtown, to some extent.
- It's the precursor of the entire field of graphic design.
Again, you may not like it. Art has always been in the eye of the beholder. You may dislike what it says. But it does say a lot, clearly and in a well thought-out way.
It says even more if you see it in the context of his earlier tree paintings. For folks who care, a rough sequence:
Pushing by any chance your own project? And forgetting to mention gnod is yet another midwit AI recommendation system for bland averaged out taste for the masses?
I have no idea I barely use it but has been around for ages, just figured it was a forgotten part of the net.
If you read my comments you will see I am skeptical towards AI and for the record I beleive that Gnod is algorithmic not necessarily the AI of “today”.
I wish gnod was a project I could pimp but the truth is that I got nothing. Go after the nerds who post their start up in comments. Me, I have never done so and I am too young to be the gnod creator.
They only make it "more complicated" if you have absolutely no clue and thought typing "make it so" in a chat window is all you need.
Every single failure here is precipitated by user stupidity. No management of terraforms tate. No verification of backup/restore procedure. No impact-gating for prod changes. No IAM roles. Reconfiguring prod while restoring a backup.
None of that rests on AI. All of that rests on clueless people thinking AI makes them smart.
Counterpoint: I've been desperately trying to code myself out of a job for almost 4 decades now. I inevitably ended up (and keep ending up) getting more responsibilities instead.
So have all the great engineers I've been working with - there's a deep desire for growth past the things that you're currently good at.
The people worrying they might code themselves out of a job are in a different skill demographic. (Ironically, that means they won't be able to code themselves out of a job)
Are you saying you want to be laid off with a nice package as you’ve been with the same employer for a long time? Couple of options: have a nice conversation with your manager and make this clear. The signs are clear that major s/w layoffs will happen in the next couple of years. Other option is to ease off - your high salary and low output will put you in the dustbin list
> Counterpoint: I've been desperately trying to code myself out of a job for almost 4 decades now. I inevitably ended up (and keep ending up) getting more responsibilities instead.
What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean you finished one project but your employer had another one for you, which you then were expected to work on instead of sitting idle? Or do you mean you coded yourself into a "promotion"?
My comment was just mocking the foolish selfless ethos of many software engineers, who don't look out for themselves and idealize giving to psychopathic organizations that will screw them the moment that's advantageous. Many software engineers have a pathological level of naivete and confusion about the role they really inhabit (e.g. righteously going on about buggy-whip makers).
My take:
To "code yourself out of a job", you must first deliver the software product that you're currently working on: No critical bugs, feature complete, present it as done.
Paradoxically, once you do that, you'll get a new project. Why not? You just successfully delivered the last project!
Humans tend to not breathe in a lot of stratospheric aerosols, on account of that being pretty high up.
As they sink down, they grow larger (condensation & coagulation). Once they reach the troposphere, they usually get down via precipitation, which also isn't really affecting a lot of breathing.
They can absolutely have other effects (see SO2/acidification, e.g), but air quality isn't really the main concern. For SO2 specifically, there's actually very little mortality sensitivity: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/wa01010x.html
You're right that the research isn't there yet to make statements with confidence, but that applies to the air quality claim as well.
Theoretically yes. Practically, folks who avoid small talk deliberately usually have enough awareness to not interrupt unless they need your time. But yes, directness without judgment is bad.
Ironically, the author fails to apply that judgment themselves and wastes a ton of words on unnecessary and/or bad examples.
And, more importantly, they miss the core point of Crocker's rule: Invoking it doesn't mean you get to tell other people how to communicate. You just tell them they're not responsible for your emotional/mental state.
If those extra details upset OP, maybe they lack the maturity to invoke that rule.
reply