jazzdev

Scott's essay is thought-provoking, but I don't think it's relevant. The essay is about

"How can I enjoy X when there are people suffering somewhere?" The question in this thread is

"Should I stop developing new thing X because some people might be harmed even if a greater number of people might be helped?"

This reminds me a sexual harassment training class I had to take at a startup decades ago. [They actually called it that too, like they were training us how to sexually harass!] We learned about something called the equal opportunity jerk defense. If you could prove you were an asshole to everyone, then you weren't guilty of sexual harrassment.

In the last few weeks Claude (Sonnet) has told me “I don’t know” 3 different times. That seems like the solution to hallucinations and it’s already happening.

I think Poe's Law applies to Shakespeare too. I recently saw Taming of the Shrew and people are still arguing about whether Shakespeare was endorsing Petruchio's starvation of Katherine to make her obey him. Or was that sarcasm, actually condemning that behavior? If only Will had used a smiley face!

YouTube seems less of a social media site than Facebook and Twitter to me. But maybe that's because I mostly use it for educational content also. I want a good recommendation engine, but I don't care what videos my friends and neighbors are watching.

Makes me thing I need a new email template

"Try this one thing: ....

If you are a detail-oriented person, you could also save us both some time and try these things also ..."

A post to HN with a query for how to get in touch with a16z engineering probably would have been fruitful.

What biased agenda do you see in this article?