ImPostingOnHN

It's still something everyone can theoretically learn, of course, and someone who works in that role is most effective by instilling those disciplines in others as they go, and making everyone successful.

Since the usa isn't a direct democracy, this isn't actually true. People vote for representatives, not things.

As for what happens to the representatives which have, since the last election, done things people oppose? We'll find out in a week or so! Looks like most people won't be voting for them.

You're not going to have a good conversation like this, and you aren't going to be "winning" anything for your troubles, either.

It's possible, but not very credible, to argue that in a situation where direct democracy doesn't exist.

The closest we have to voted for these things rather than voted for these people is polls, which overwhelmingly illustrate that most people oppose those things.

We'll know more after the election, if people supported those things.

> It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election

Yes, the current president tried exactly that, in a violent insurrection, and has interfered in national elections since regaining power.

how can we verify that a file was not altered before checksumming and uploading it?

> Nitpicks on style, not substance

> Async waiting for review or re-review after making changes, harder to stay in what passes for a "flow state" nowadays

> A lot of a ceremony around straightforward changes

Those aren't great, but you what I like even less?

- Wall of nondeterministic bot text spam that may or may not be correct.

- Bot output has not been verified for correctness by the person who set up this bot output pipeline.

- Bot output has not even necessarily been read by the person who set it up.

- You have 24 hours to respond to this 5 page wall of text which may or may not be correct, or even make sense, or you will be penalized.

An appropriate response to this might be a reply flatly claiming that, actually, there aren't any problems after all, but that nobody has checked that that is true, and it is incumbent upon a human reviewer to verify your claims, like it was incumbent upon you to verify their bot's.

Can an LLM catch some errors? Absolutely. Can it be trusted to be correct absent review of the output? Absolutely not. So the simple solution seems to be, a human reviewer is free to run an LLM against code to review, on their own computer, and then they review the output, and they post the output only after verifying its correctness, taking personal responsibility for any issues with their posted output.

Are you sure you replied to the right post? You're agreeing with me here.

The post I replied to is the one suggesting that us little people doing this is at least as bad as rich people and rich corps doing it.