pmichaud

The cruel irony of this panopticon is that I don’t even get good ads!

I was surprised to see you say you have automated tests. To me this makes most of the difference, but you have you actually have a good test suite, like one that actually proves the code does what you want it to do. Unit tests, property tests, e2e tests. The other part that makes all difference, is you have to be all up in the model's business about architecture. Pick something that wants to testable and isolation friendly, data models that are correct by construction (ie invalid states are not expressible), etc. It absolutely will try to cut corners give you bullshit slop at every turn, you have to keep the structure sane and build the right tests and harness around it.

And I can hear your objection now: correct, it's probably not worth all that for a throwaway, but the effort per output goes down as the infra builds up and you end up with a program that can reliably expand.

If I were in charge of a package manager I would be seriously looking into automated and semi automated exploit detection so that people didn't have to yolo new packages to find out if they are bad. The checking would itself become an attack vector, but you could mitigate that too. I'm just saying _something_ is possible.

I think it's probably a little bit about Goodhart? At some point soon after stars were widely in use but prior to them being connected to any particular incentive I bet they were actually a great signal of... something. But then once someone started using the signal to give attention or dollars, the signal was compromised.

I think it's more like a sign post in the text. At the start of any paragraph (or sentence, really) the text may go literally anywhere--could be a new thought, a continuation of an implicit list, an explanation of what came previous, or anything else.

If you say something weird or apparently unsupported, the savvy reader at that very moment is going to be thinking so. So it's helpful to orient them like:

> Here's a wild sentence. Here's why it's not actually that wild: reasons

Without the connecting phrase, the reader has to figure out from context that out of all the possible things the following text could be doing, what it's actually doing is explaining the previous claim.

You can rightly counterpoint that it's not strictly necessary, that a savvy reader can figure it out. But I think the moment right after a wild statement is a hotspot for readers getting ready to jettison, and having a little assurance is likely very helpful.

I think as many other people who replied to you have said, it's a mixed bag. It's better in some sense, with abstractions and frameworks that sand down sharp edges, and libraries that can do everything. But it's also crushingly more complex. Back in the day you had to know and care about memory allocation and ASM, but all the knowledge you needed was in a manual or two that you owned and could actually know the contents of.

My tldr: people see what they want to see according to their political commitments.

The abstract:

> “Cultural cognition” refers to the unconscious influence of individuals’ group commitments on their perceptions of legally consequential facts. We con- ducted an experiment to assess the impact of cultural cognition on perceptions of facts relevant to distinguishing constitutionally protected “speech” from unpro- tected “conduct.” Study subjects viewed a video of a political demonstration. Half the subjects believed that the demonstrators were protesting abortion out- side of an abortion clinic, and the other half that the demonstrators were protesting the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy outside a military recruitment center. Subjects of opposing cultural outlooks who were assigned to the same experimental condition (and thus had the same belief about the nature of the protest) disagreed sharply on key “facts”—including whether the protestors obstructed and threatened pedestrians. Subjects also disagreed sharply with those who shared their cultural outlooks but who were assigned to the opposing experimental condition (and hence had a different belief about the nature of the protest). These results supported the study hypotheses about how cultural cognition would affect perceptions pertinent to the speech-conduct distinction. We discuss the significance of the results for constitutional law and liberal principles of self-governance generally.

It made immediate sense to me, since the painted statues do, in fact, look gaudy and horrible. I think he was evoking a widely held feeling that is bot in common knowledge.

I’m guessing that this is the first thing they thought of and the problem only exists in the superficial gloss you’re responding to?

I think the concern is that if the system is susceptible to this sort of manipulation, then when it’s inevitably put in charge of life critical systems it will hurt people.

A language learning platform that works would be nice, instead of this.

Probably not. I think it's the beginning of a major language evolution.

I experience and wonder the same thing, but literally yesterday I had to help my grandmother recover from a phishing scam that actually (very nearly) worked on her. So there you go.

I don't have any particular knowledge about oxide's cooling, but think about how bloated and inefficient literally every part of the compute stack is from metal to seeing these words on a screen. If you imagine fixing every part of it to be efficient top to bottom, I think you'll agree that we're not even in the same galaxy as the physical limitations of moving electrons around at high speeds.

When I was doing a bunch of learning about linguistics, situations like this were very interesting and confusing to me. I still don't have a good working intuition for how this is possible. I don't understand what maintains the sound differences in the face of the continuous exposure to substantially different accents. It's empirically possible, but it's never made sense to me. Why don't you and your brothers end up talking the same after a while?