Tainnor

> Rayiner takes a lot of arrows on HN because he is (particularly these days) one of a tiny few who is notable for advocating conservative/libertarian positions. Those words in his comment weren't great but they were more of a commentary on society than a personal attack.

Thank you, this reply tells me everything I need to know.

> the way you are engaging with others in this thread

The only person I engaged with negatively here was a person who called me "marinated in liberal propaganda", something that notably you didn't take issue with. I will admit that I should have just ignored that person and will try to disengage in the future. Or maybe just avoid this site altogether.

I did however call out that there's a sizable and vocal minority of users that are very right wing authoritarian and I stand by that assessment. I also disagree that these toxic opinions "rarely get seen", I see them a ton. And my ultimate point is that this serves to ultimately drive away more moderate voices.

Whether or not you consider that to be a problem is up to you.

I didn't call anyone a Nazi because I don't like the inflationary use of that term. But the "Nazi bar problem" is, unfortunately, an established metaphor. It doesn't have to be about literal Nazis, it could be about tankies for all I care. The problem is the same.

I'm going to keep calling people right-wing authoritarian and possibly fascist not for supporting more policing, but for supporting a person who has shown repeatedly that they want to rule as an authoritarian leader and is now implementing another step of that policy.

It literally doesn't matter how bad crime in DC is, because the danger of allowing a person who has denied losing an election for 4 years to single-handedly take over the capital of the most powerful country on earth is so high, in the same way as it didn't matter whether communists actually did or didn't set fire to the Reichstag.

This is what this is about. Not reasonable disagreement about policing, or immigration.

But of course, your only response to opposing authoritarianism is that one has to be some sort of anarchist.

Rest assured that I would react exactly the same if I was talking to a Tankie who was supporting some sort of Stalinist dictatorship.

I hate criminals and social disorder too.

You're part of the problem that I'm talking about. Instead of engaging with the issue at hand, you jump to wild assumptions about my positions, as if there were no alternatives between absolute anarchy and full-on authoritarianism.

That's what I mean by "poisoning the well", you have 124268 karma and yet you can't help yourself but discuss in bad faith.

It's frustrating precisely because even a small amount of bad faith actors can serve to poison the well. It's a problem that ultimately every online community has to deal with in some way.

And when called out on it reply that the comments are often more interesting than the article which is a) trivially true when you don't read the article and b) probably because bickering in comments is more emotionally satisfying and requires a shorter attention span than reading a rather long article (I'm not immune, seeing as I'm now bickering about the bickering).

Apart from the fact that this was pure self-promotion, it was also spamming the Wikipedias of small language communities with low-effort autotranslated garbage, which I think is rather insulting.

The UK left the EU and is pushing very similar sorts of dangerous nonsense legislation when it comes to the internet, so this is clearly not just a EU thing.

Users definitely care about things like reliability when they're using actually important software (which probably excludes a lot of startup junk). They may not be able to point to what causes issues, but they obviously do complain when things are buggy as hell.

I didn't say complex, I said long.

If you have complex objects and you're doing complex operations on them, then setup code can get rather long.

As someone who leans more towards the side of LLM-sceptiscism, I find Sonnet 4 quite useful for generating tests, provided I describe in enough detail how I want the tests to be structured and which cases should be tested. There's a lot of boilerplate code in tests and IMO because of that many developers make the mistake of DRYing out their test code so much that you can barely understand what is being tested anymore. With LLM test generation, I feel that this is no longer necessary.

It may not be perfect, but IntelliJ beats VS Code on so many other levels that I don't understand why everyone keeps creating clones of the latter.

There have been so many "advances" in software development in the last decades - powerful type systems, null safety, sane error handling, Erlang-style fault tolerance, property testing, model checking, etc. - and yet people continue to write garbage code in unsafe languages with underpowered IDEs.

I think many in the industry have absolutely no clue what they're doing and are bad at evaluating productivity, often prioritising short term delivery over longterm maintenance.

LLMs can absolutely be useful but I'm very concerned that some people just use them to churn out code instead of thinking more carefully about what and how to build things. I wish we had at least the same amount of discussions about those things I mentioned above as we have about whether Opus, Sonnet, GPT5 or Gemini is the best model.