Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | blharr's commentslogin

Git becomes a lot easier to understand once you learn its "hidden" interactive flags

Like git rebase -i as well


> I recommend to stop being condescending

Said in perhaps, the most condescending way possible


The irony of this fact should be front and center to everyone and thus people saying it should have this forced to be capitalized with exclamation points.

Similar, all invocations of "calm down" should be in all caps with exclamation points. Never in history has telling someone whose upset to "calm down" actually led to them calming down.


You can prune a plum tree but you can't plum a prune true


But you /could/ make a pruned plum tree plumb.


"Let my soul die with the Philistines" being the literal translation?


Sure but with how many people who use AI without disclosing that they are... and the profit incentive it'd only need one person to make a chat focused on non-watermarking that makes it trivial.

Im pretty sure said services already exist, making it so your writing doesnt sound or look like AI... but the real problem is surprisingly that we don't even care if the output is AI


Its weird to me that this is supposed to be THE end goal. Having an agent that does "everything" for you sounds like no paradise. It sounds depressing.

Maybe there is value in expending effort and actual creativity.


Not sure why you’re talking about it doing literally everything for you. I’m sure you can imagine a scenario where it handles annoying things for you and leaves you free to do things you enjoy instead.

Maybe it gets 10 car insurance quotes for you based on 4 models of car you’re considering.

Or figures out which psychologists in some travel distance of you actually take your insurance, are taking new patients, and what availability they have.

I can think of a ton of scenarios where a capable and reliable AI agent could make my life simpler.


But, is "making my life simpler" actually worth the (ultimately) trillions of dollars that will go into AI in the next few years? Not to mention that he's calling AI "superintelligence" in the first few paragraphs, then qualifying it by talking about personal assistants.


Burn Venture Capital, Burn! In the best case, it's not your trillions of dollars. Just make sure that your Government doesn't invests.


I think this is just the flaw in the sales pitch. They want it to be inevitable so they describe as doing everything. That way it will appear more useful to more people. If they presented a realistic view of what is going it wouldn't be as interesting.


Sure, but why doesn't said business partner just give a requirement to the AI to do the business partner's own job? Since it is hypothetically superhuman at fulfilling requirements at such a point...

PMs seem pretty easy to replace. In fact, given any single role to fixate on, it's probably replaceable


The no capitals is really hard for me. Especially given the font "i" makes me think of the imaginary number and I get mentally derailed even though I know it's not. Or maybe it's just eyestrain

I understand why you might for stylistic reasons, but a toggle would be nice!


And similar to the low quality of developers...

If you are even thinking about writing clean and testable code, having clearly defined API boundaries, and keeping a repeatable build process, you are probably already significantly above average.

If you are even trying to save, invest diversified, and manage risk as you age... you're probably doing better than like 80% of your peers financially


Uncle Bob is a worse programmer than Casey Muratori, and he does nothing but think about clean code.


"Solved" (heavy quotes) because instiutionalizing dozens of millions of people with no improvement is a massive crime in and of itself.

That's like those stories of LLMs saying "I fixed the vulnerability in your app" by deleting the project entirely


Wouldn’t you say that the lowered crime rate enjoyed by the innocent as a result is an improvement?


Why not just incarcerate everyone between the age of 15-27, if what we're worried about is crime rate.


Because most of those people are not repeat violent criminals? We only need to incarcerate repeat violent offenders to reduce crime noticeably. This is not controversial. The data is linked-to above.


> Because most of those people are not repeat violent criminals

Oh so you do believe in justice


If we incarcerated everyone, it would be even lower.


Reductio ad absurdum


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

Search: