Their point is that quoting chatgpt is a bad comment.
What's your point? It would be just as bad for someone to google a question and copy the first result snippet verbatim. So you've successfully brought up another bad way to comment.
I'm a scuba-diver and qualified marine archaelogist with a long-standing interest in archaeology and history.
I used Google to find suitable lay-descriptions/citations for the topics I already knew about (UK law on treasure and maritime law on salvage), and to understand more about applicable laws in the USA.
If you don't believe what otherwise sounds reasonable take, I don't know what to tell you. I mentioned it as a good starting point if s/he so cares to read further.
How about you prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. Otherwise you're solving for a problem that doesn’t exist.
I read the grandparent comment's point as being about suggesting %-based fines.
> prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get.
How/where did the grandparent comment claim that the rich get more speeding tickets? Even if the rich speed at a lower rate, would that make %-based fines a negative improvement?
> a problem that doesn’t exist
My assumption was the speeding is a problem no matter whether rich or poor, and that both exist. Is there disagreement there?
Instead, I think their point was that even a $100 fine for a poor person may impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc, whereas for someone who has $10 million, etc., even a $1,000 fine will not impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc as they still have $9,999,000.
Expensive cars tend to accelerate faster, and it can be vastly harder to feel the speed. It would be unsurprising if up until some limit there was a correlation between wealth and the frequency of getting speeding tickets.
I don’t even open a text editor anymore 90% of the time. Seems clear to me that IDEs, in the traditional sense, don’t really have a place in the future of software creation. They might morph into something that does, but definitely not in their current form, imo.
I think this statement is misguided, and potentially comes from a lack of experience in getting AI coders to produce quality.
Proper engineering does not come about from the tools you use or how you use them. Proper engineering has always come from thought, and reasoning, it never was about the act of coding. It always was about the systems thinking and expressing the goals and desires that matched the requirements.
IDEs were never needed to properly engineer and in the days of AI will become increasingly less important.
Tools for planning, reviewing, and commenting on code are the future. The necessity to edit actual code is coming to an end.
Yes, that's what I said, I'm contrasting properly engineered AI code to vibe coded slop AI code, not that human written code is inherently better engineered.
I'd rather have a thousand form-factors and build qualities to choose from than the one-size-fits-all that Apple offers. If Apple doesn't make it, then you can't run their software on it, and they don't make too many form factors.
I can run Windows on a USB stick form-factor if I want to. Or dozens of tablet sizes from various vendors. And every kind of laptop imaginable, with all kinds of features. And everything else up to massive rack-mount server hardware. But sure, if a Macbook is all you need, then go for it.
Oh boy. Now we’re entering the fiber era. We’re just leaving the protein era. Before that it was the intermittent fasting era. Before that it was the keto era. The low fat era was probably a few before that.
I hear about fiber constantly all of the sudden. You might be right about it, but how do we know it’s different than. All the past nutrition tends?
Idk about cholesterol, fiber is well known to be very healthy. Same for protein.
Losing body fat will often have the biggest impact by far if one is overweight, though. It also stabilizes blood sugar and has a lot of benefits in general.
Before manufactured insulin shots, the treatment for diabetes was a multi-day oatmeal fast. This has been around for many decades. The only thing that's changed is that you are finally hearing about it.
It is funny how you can break diet/nutrition into generations like this.
I think the trends are a reflection of poor education. Fiber/protein/whatever being important components of a diet isn't new information. But the information is new to folks that never had nutrition explained to them.
I feel like we're due for something really ridiculous next. I've been paying attention to macros, fibre, salt, and having a reasonably varied diet for years; we've done salt, fat, carbs, protein, and now we're doing fibre.
"Eat a varied diet" seems boring but maybe those influencers selling pills made from 500 vegetables were ahead of the curve all along.
It would probably be better to just eat all those different vegetables as part of actual meals to get a varied diet, rather than in pill form.
I was under the impression that more protein and less salt/fat/carbs are still kinda the trend? If more fiber gets added to the mix I guess it is essentially telling people to eat more plants, thus leading to more varied diets overall.
Because the trends are bullshit and nutrition is just not that complicated.
The trends are a strange type of nutrition entertainment for people to read and then ignore in practice. There is some kind of psychological comfort in the knowing you can switch to oatmeal next week while gorging yourself at the Cheesecake Factory.
Oatmeal is good for you. News at a 11. We have known this for at least that last 50 years.
reply