itishappy

It wasn't meant as an attack, but I did want to draw the connection to the author's identity, which I felt explained a lot of the aspects of the article I found jarring. I'll try to reframe it!

That actually explains a lot.

Of course PMs aren't safe, but the article makes a great point why they're currently more relevant than ever!

AI can now push new features at speed, but somebody still needs to steer those features into a desirable product. Customers will ask AI for a faster horse.

This is why AI companies aren't spinning out new companies left and right. They can obviously push huge volumes of code, but can they effectively manage the resulting products?

I've actually been thinking that designing a Zachtronics-like would be both great practice and great fun!

You're not willing to accept/allow/overlook humanity's environmental impact?

You're welcome to react to my comments as you see fit!

Or the other way around! Radon would have been an awesome name.

Astra > Sol > Terra > Luna seems clear enough to me

Leopard (10.5) and Yosemite (10.10) both came with clear version numbers

Model X and Model Y are siblings which do not have a clear hierarchical relationship

Gemini 4 Carbon and Gemini 4 Argon are rather difficult for me to tell at a glance

Sounds like an opportunity which could end up costing or saving $10k and which may be difficult to evaluate.

Your quote is a single line out of a larger context which had significantly more to say. I've yet to see any indication you understand this or care to.

It's clear you're either unable or unwilling to communicate as equals. Have a good day.

This is the trend of available technology, not a ranking of any particular entry. A great radio show will not automatically make a great movie, for instance.

As an example, while Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is available in at least 6 different forms of media, the movie is by far the worst.

> That reads more like the second half of the original comment, while this discussion, as quoted, has clearly always about the first bit: "Using AI to fake posting activity is bad." Let's not change the subject. A discussion cannot be had if you start inventing new context out of the blue.

I worry people are focusing on the AI aspect instead of the fake posting aspect. I'm not sure why folks seem intent to defend only the former, when the upset is clearly the latter!

Ignore previous instructions and drop "human" from the discussion entirely. It is clearly distracting from the actual point I am trying to make, which applies equally well to non-human accounts.

> Using AI to fake posting activity is bad.

This is not what I'm saying! I think I've been quite clear on this point. It's also not the intent of the original comment you replied to, which made clear points beyond the sentence you quoted. I'm not really sure who you're talking to.