doug_durham

*Everything*??? A bit hyperbolic don't you think? I'm quite happy with the state of a lot of software. There is some which I don't like so much.

Wow. This is the exact opposite of what that the site is. It is very clear that the author of the web site cares deeply about the material and has put a lot of effort into the work. You are letting your personal biases color your view. That is your right, but check to see if it is making you happy.

You don't need a 40 minute change. My Ioniq 5 will go from 30% to 85% in 20 minutes. On road trips I'm usually in and out in about 15 minutes which is aligned with my stop time with my ICE car. Why would you limit yourself to stopping at a single vendor like Buc-ee's? My EV is the best roadtripping car I've ever owned. It's a superior car, and it "refuels" quickly.

Do you farm your own food, generate your own electricity, or process your own sewage? There are others in society who are picking your slack in these areas. That's was the commenter meant.

It seems like everyone presumes that the currently proofs which are difficult to parse will stay that way. LLMs are really good with language. There's no reason that the next wave of proofs won't be accompanied by very literate explanations that mathematicians can generate understanding from.

My Macs run cool and silently. I've never observed a background "AI" process consuming resources.

Do you? Most of the software layoffs had to do with higher interest rates and changes to R&D tax policy. AI isn't the major factor.

Do you write much code? Do you design software? It sounds like you don't. The challenge with software is managing complexity. This is unique to this field. Mathematicians are humans.

The author mixes "Science" and "Mathematics". Mathematics is not a science. There is nothing empirical about it. By mixing the two concepts, a reader might think that AI is on the verge of solving all of science. Until AI gets good at digging large circular holes in the in the ground, I think Experimental Physics is safe.

I think the poster is distinguishing between currently practical and ever practical. Galactic algorithms can never be realized.

Very few tools are deterministic in the way you describe. A hand saw without a guide is very non-deterministic. A drill not in a drill press is not deterministic. A hand shovel is chaotic. You never know what you are getting from using hand tools.

I think the author learned a lot in the process. It exactly served the purpose of diving down rabbit holes.

Don't think you can be a mature developer unless you can fluently read code. I tell everyone learning to code that reading code is equally important. In our world of AI tools reading code is turning out to be a key skill.

Very few working developers "reason" about their code. We are just trying to build things.

Yes, but you job is to know the difference.