Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | xorcist's commentslogin

Right. But more often than not, the problem that's being solved is "we have gotten money to throw at things", so the answer of throwing in many more people to busywork kind of makes sense.

That's before we even think about all the consultants and similar roles where busywork really is work. Then all the organizational or agile roles.

The fact that some product gets shipped and we still have customers is good, because that's what pays for it all, but that is just the foundation we all rest on. Almost like background noise.


Newspeak is the trademark of oppressive regimes. Can we please not overexert ourselves in trying to please the global tech companies by pre-emptively changing our language?

Google details new process to install unverified Android apps. The sentence is much more clear using established language. Not "side-load", whatever that means.


What exactly is your argument here? That organic chemistry is all wrong and oxidization is unfalsifiable, or that the fossil industry itself is fudging the numbers to make it look life we're oxidizing less organic matter than we think?

The big cloud providers are perfectly happy to use GPL'd stuff (see: Elastic, MySQL). They don't need to use embrace-and-extend, they're content with hosting.

The ones pushing for permissive licenses are rather companies like Apple, Android (and to some extent other parts of Google), Microsoft, Oracle. They want to push their proprietary stuff and one way to do that in the face of open source competition is by proprietary extensions.


> ones pushing for permissive licenses are rather companies like Apple, Android

The FOSS community at large embraced permissive licenses and it had nothing to do with the interests of big corporations.


That used to be my joke! Given that most large organization spend (much) more time with the administrative work around code changes than the actual changes themselves (planning, deciding, meetings) then before we let Claude write our code we should let it write our Jira tickets. It was a great joke because while it was obviously absurd to many people it also made them a bit uneasy.

Cue a similar joke about salary negotiation, and the annual dance around goals and performance indicators. Is it really programmers who should be afraid to become redundant, when you think about it?

I should know better than making jokes about reality. It has already one-upped me too many times.


Tried that last year and the problem was, the tickets themselves were broken down well enough to make sense to the naked eye. The second problem was that it was all for a legacy codebase where practically everybody who had built it over the years had left, so it was a real don't-know-what-you-don't-know situation.

The second problem was always going to be there, even with human written tickets, but the problem really is that someone who relies on AI gets into the habit of treating the LLM as a more trustworthy colleague than anybody on the team, and mistakes start slipping in.

This is equally problematic for the engineers using AI to implement the features because they are no longer learning the quirks of the codebase and they are very quickly putting a hard ceiling on their career growth by virtue of not working with the team, not communicating that well, and not learning.


But your XML document also has syntax! You just pushed it up one level of abstraction.

Your proto-math XML dialect of:

  <subtract><minuend>5</minuend><subtrahend>3</subtrahend></subtract>
instead of:

  5-3
still has higher level syntax. What does:

  <subtract><minuend>5</minuend><subtrahend>i</subtrahend></subtract>
mean? Is it a syntax error? Or does it subtract imaginary numbers? What about exponential notation?

You will have a parser anyway, whether you like it or not. Given that, perhaps "5-3" is the simpler notation after all, even though it requires a specialized (albeit trivial) parser to be carried along with it.


> Charging may seem like a minor inconvenience,

It won't once they're five years old!

I'm not against battery powered headphones, but I won't even take a second look at them if they don't have a battery type that is likely to be available in a decade or two, and isn't inconveniently glued shut. That leaves me very few options.

When I find a pair of cans I like I'd like to keep them. The idea that my tools have planned their obsolensce in advance seems completely ridicolous to me. I would never buy a nice guitar if it had a lifespan shorter than my own, for example.


The "real impact" of AI being gargantuan spending, or something else?

That's .. not at all how interest rates work.

Is the Git Book part of the git repo?

Is the Linux Doc Projec part of the kernel?

No. For good reasons. The only people who insists all doc must live in the same repo as the code are the ones who does not value documentation.

Note, that in both examples above there is a documentation in the main repo, but not all documentation lives there.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: