roflc0ptic

Heh I’ve been doing almost the same - back testing against PR comments - and opus 5.5 matched fable 5.1. About $24 for 10 PRs.

I was surprised how much worse Astra did on correctness; I stopped testing with it. Gonna try sol and Luna but low confidence

Fair point, though I think “did I accurately summarize a conversation” is much harder to check/get away with vs “did I piss off the person on the other end”

I’m inclined to believe that call center employees don’t have a lot of incentive to do a good job/care, so a lossy AI could quite plausibly be higher quality than a human

Pretty sure this is out of date now

The claim here is that the tech innovation is occurring in the US. It adds value globally, but most of the profits from that value are being realized in the US b/c the innovation is by US companies.

There’s no natural law that says technical innovation must occur in NA, but due to contingent historical conditions, it is occurring here. Thus, the gains are being realized in the US stock market b/c it’s the one capitalizing the winners.

I work with a bunch of functional programmers. We went through most of “category theory for programmers.” We had support from a math PhD.

Broad consensus was it was a waste of time. Functional programming has taken the useful bits, and some of the less useful bits. The rest is arcanum, and as useful to programming as astronomy

Yeah the subject of my sentence was unclear. I was responding to the comment about IO in particular.

(Tries to fight the urge to explain, fails) it’s a construct to sequence async interactions, one after the other, without blocking. It’s very similar to c# or python’s await

The simple answer here is that the boards actions stood to incinerate millions of dollars of wealth for most of these employees, and they were up in arms.

They’re all acting out the intended incentives of giving people stake in a company: please don’t destroy it.

Kudos to Krystal for trying this out. As I've been working on a globally distributed team lately, I've been reflecting that while I only get 4-6 good hours of programming in a day, the value of everyone working the same 8 hours is really about being able to coordinate.

Support's a different beast, though.

I shared this understanding. I'd be curious to hear where GP's understanding differs.

yeah, definitely. "Drugs are bad, actually" is decidedly an over simplification. For the record my drugs of choice are SSRIs, caffeine, and mushrooms.

Full agree with everything you're saying here. The less oversimplified realization I had: In the pros/cons of "Should drugs be fully legalized?" I was counting only the negative aspects of making drugs illegal, not the negative aspects of legalization. I expect others make this error too, so "drugs are bad, actually" is intended as a pithy corrective, less a broad ethical directive.

The specific causes of this realization: the accruing evidence of the downsides of THC, and the easy access of teenagers to extremely potent weed. The ditch weed I bought from Curtis behind The Globe coffee shop in high school simply had less potential for harm.

> we should probably come up with better terminology that correctly reflects addiction potential and intrinsic and extrinsic damage

Full agree. Really there are complex policy trade offs here. I don't pretend to know optimal solutions, and agree that arriving at optimal solutions is unlikely via an extremely polarized discourse.

I used to share a similar position until I realized: drugs are bad, actually, and there should be substantial friction in making them available to people.

Disincentivizing drug consumption is a good thing. The war on drugs obviously leads to some absurdities - e.g. drug cartels, unnecessary incarceration - and I much prefer the Portuguese model.

But making fentanyl in particular available in the grocery store would be bad; some substantial number of people would die who wouldn't have died otherwise. Some substantial number of people who would never have tried fentanyl would give it a try.

Some sensible balance needs to be struck between a free society and preventing people from e.g. leaving live landmines in their parking lots. Doing things which inevitably kill people/mess up their lives without active violence is still bad, and should be heavily discouraged.