fwiw for all the praise that dang & co get, they moderated this website into this state. there is a "blessed" way to break the rules and be a total asshole to people here, and there is the "other" way, that they punish relentlessly. we all have bad days, but HN's comments are just an exhausting cesspool of cynicism and cheap takes for the most part these days.
I never spent much time there but I have heard people say that. A part of me worries that I might have become the old "get off my lawn" type of person in some ways.
I just don't relate to a lot of the upvoted content here, so instead of singing my soul trying to make sense of things, I moved on. Perhaps it's not my place to be any more. These new places I have joined are much easier for me to talk in, and there are no upvotes/downvotes so people tend to be pretty chill and genuine, even if it causes friction sometimes.
It's obviously subjective, but I have a feeling this community has descended into hardcore cynicism and cheap meta analysis of most article I care about. Maybe it's the times we live in.
I barely spend much time in the comment sections nowadays - once I stopped visiting this website I started following a bunch of makers on youtube and printables, and got looped into some discord groups and meetups. It was a breath of fresh air - would definitely recommend.
IMO the article was a great intro to the project and I really like how the thoughts were laid out. I got a lot of food for thought from it and I'd recommend that people read it. I don't care how it was written.
AI can produce interesting thoughts just like you can produce meaningless flamewars.
Are the many who disagree that it is unreadable more than the people who agree? I have been involved with the language for a while now, and while I appreciate what you and many others have done for it, the sense that the group is immune to feedback just becomes too palpable too often. That, and the really aggressive PR.
Rust is trying to solve a really important problem, and so far it might well be one of the best solutions we have for it in a general sense. I 100% support its use in as many places as possible, so that it can evolve. However, its evolution seems to be thwarted by a very vocal subset of its leadership and community who have made it a part of their identity and whatever socio-political leverage toolset they use.
Why not? He was a part of a pretty radioactive network of people. I doubt that he just happened to hang with Epstein by mere coincidence, and it does raise some questions about how much Sheryl knew about it.
Not necessarily. "Quality" and "Security" can be tricky subjects when it comes to a shell. Rust itself is pretty great, but its HN community is made of cringe and zealotry - don't let them dissuade you from trying the language :P
This might be the case if all your travel boils down to off season direct flights between major airports.
In my experience, it has been rapidly going up in price and down in quality since the end of the pandemic. You have very few protections as a passenger, and while you may have some rights on paper, they have been made excruciatingly difficult to pursue with the way support lines work with airlines.
To add insult to the injury, look up the history of bailouts airlines have received.
There is nothing wrong with being dramatic occasionally! I wish there were a real science to help us understand ourselves more reliably too - but there isn't. But maybe we are slowly entering the enlightenment after the dark ages of psychology?
I think in today's world it is easy to become a cynic, and being a cynic is one way to feel safe. Depending on what your utility function about the world is, being a cynic might actually be the most "rational" approach to life - new things are more likely to fail, and if you always bet that something will fail, or is flawed, or worthless, or a scam, you will be right more often that you will be wrong. In the right circles you might be considered a wholesome, grounded, put together person if you are like that.
But perhaps we could get the best of both worlds? Have a little corner of your garden that is entirely dedicated to experimentation with ideas - keep them there, see how they interact with a sampling of your actual garden, and after you feel confident enough, promote them to the real garden, and let them nudge your life a little. If it turns out for the worse, tear them out and throw them,
Paul Bloom (the author if this article) is pretty legendary in the psychology realm. This is not your average run of the mill writer looking to tap into the doomer vibe.
He makes a pretty detailed argument about why loneliness can be a much bigger and more complex problem than its tame name suggests, and the subtle ways in which AI has the potential to exacerbate it.
This type of pseudo-intellectual skepticism seems typical for HN, but the truth is that the NYC subway is an absolute horror show compared to the subway systems of equally or more corrupt European/Chinese cities.
I am actually baffled that this is even up for debate... Have you seen/smelled the NYC subway? Yes, it's NYC's most used public utility other than perhaps water and electricity, but people use it despite its qualities.
My main frustration with the person I was responding to is that a lot of the terms we are arguing about are ill-defined, and yet he's arguing them with a lot of vigor.
There is also a time dimension to software. I have been on some occasions the only developer of pieces software that were tackling hairy problems that teams of "normal" developers would avoid. I always wanted to solve those problems in a way that would make everyone's life easier. To do that I had to spend a ton of deep focus time on modeling the problems effectively, and if I was successful, people who were put off by the problem space would come and contribute, because they found the model amenable. Or they thought it'd benefit them to be a part of a project that's picking up steam. A lot of these people would fix small issues here and there, but some of them actually donated a lot of focus and helped take these projects to new levels. The ones making the deep changes always cared deeply about the problem space, or brought a lot of knowledge from another subset of cs, and I wouldn't call them "normal". I think it is a disservice to the sacrifices they made to do what nobody else felt like doing and throw a blanket statement like "teams of mundane contributors do the really important work".
This is not a dig at "normal" devs - I have been the "normal" dev on many projects, but because of my experiences I try to give credit where credit is due.
I also detest the 10x thing exactly for the reasons you pointed out.