ericyd

I feel like I haven't yet figured out the line to draw between disliking something because it's AI-generated and disliking something because it's lazy.

This line:

> Checked by a guardrail test, not just claimed.

Is such a meaningless statement to include in the marketing page, it immediately makes me feel like the entire effort was lazy because it seems like they didn't proofread their own page. I almost would rather they just have a page describing what they were trying to accomplish and the prompt they used to get there, and skip the ceremony of the generated library.

I thought for sure you meant Chinese as in Volvo. Damn, I sure was wrong.

Could you elaborate? This tactic feels identical to the way apple locks down apps to the app store, which requires paid developer accounts

> What modern production calls “correction,” and mistakes for care, is really a form of epistemic violence against the record of human beings objectifying felt time for our understanding.

I hope this was written as tongue in cheek, otherwise wow, you are taking yourself too seriously.

Lol yes. Though i graduated in 2016 so no idea if that's the current location.

Studying geology in Portland as an undergraduate, I didn't appreciate how unusual it was to have widespread basalt formations. It's super common in the area due to some ancient flood basalt. I appreciate it more visually after leaving and getting some perspective from other landscapes.

I would really love a "why" at the top of the readme

It is important to acknowledge and name corruption for what it is. It's just hard to continue to have novel reactions to it. It reminds me of an article I read once about cartel violence in Mexico, and how people typically become desensitized to the violence.

Isn't the opposite of acqui-hired just... not acquired nor hired?

Hard disagree: 1. Writing every piece of software you want to use yourself is unreasonable, 2. The power to change doesn't make it wrong to complain about valid shortcomings. If my ISP is unstable, I can probably change but it's still a reasonable human reaction to complain. "Never complain" is a nice philosophy but really hard to stick to forever.

Aren't LLMs precisely "very good guessing machines"?

Strange response, do you believe that society has always had access to online gambling, in the same way that alcohol and drugs have been around forever?

Very nice collection!

this is incredible, thank you for your service

I disagree, requiring code review for docs changes sounds great but in my experience it's extremely hard to get a human to review docs changes. Either you get a rubber stamp with no real review (zero added value, adds useless friction) or you spend days bugging people to actually review your changes. All for docs!

The counter-argument i envision is: "update your docs and code at the same time in the same PR!" That works great, until you want to document something that isn't precisely tied to a single piece of code. In fact I think the most useful docs describe high level systems rather than being associated with specific pieces of code. Use comments for that; in contrast, docs should be easily editable by anyone at all times, otherwise they never get updated (an evergreen problem in any scenario).