yura

You're literally restating the same point that the original poster has already made in his comment. You're agreeing with him.

Seems like you just read the first phrase of his comment and immediately went into an adversarial "are you being sarcastic?" loop. Because the point you made is what came immediately after the part you quoted in his original comment:

> [...] but let's play out the worst case scenario and a fascist government comes to power and something I do now is considered criminal and they can place me doing it with this DNA that as the author describes can narrow down if it was me pretty easily.

> No, they really care strongly about the equality thing

They really don’t. The restriction heavily benefits programmers and/or very technical people who know how to game it.

"Every single one of those ads were programmed by... a human! We (as humans) are the ones doing this!"

See? That logic doesn't work so well. "Software engineers" are not a singular entity nor a homogeneous group. To maintain the status quo, it doesn't take more than just a few SWEs willing to implement ads and/or invasive tracking.

I’ve used Protonmail for years, but lately the encryption is making me seriously consider a switch. You can’t use 3rd party email clients, unless you also install Proton Mail Bridge, which is only available for paid users. And the bridge only works for desktop, so you won’t be able to use 3rd party email clients on your phone.

This is an issue not only with Proton Mail, but with other services in their ecosystem too. For example, you also can’t integrate Proton Calendar with the iOS Calendar app, because of the encryption.

And all of this is for no benefit, because your email won’t be fully E2E encrypted unless your recipient is also using Proton Mail. Most of your recipients will be using Gmail or Outlook, so at the end of the day Google/Microsoft will read your emails anyway.

I’m considering switching to Fastmail, Mailbox.org, or Migadu. If you need to send truly private emails, use PGP encryption.

More importantly, there's zero evidence for the claim that achieving AGI would be beneficial to mankind.

> It may be possible to practice this but someone who does poorly at this untrained is unlikely to ever reach even median level ability. There are techniques you can learn to perform this task in a multiple choice test situation but they don't train your brain to be better at visualizing 3d rotations at all.

Any source for this claim? I'd like to read more about it.

Some say scammers are very smart, and that they deliberately use every trick in the book to tap into our psychological weaknesses and make us act irrationally. But I have the feeling that, 90% of the time, scammers are just told to write an "official-sounding" message – which is the same thing that the hypothetical human who wrote this template was trying to do: that's why the result is so similar. No doubt the use of the word "urgent", or capitalizing the words "Duty" and "Taxes", come from this attempt at making the message sound more formal and official, from someone who is definitely not a skilled writer.

I've learned so many things on SO though. For example, some amazing answers there made me realize the power of sed and awk, and motivated me to learn it.

Ironically, I think the greatest quality of SO is exactly what most people complain about: that sometimes when you ask how to do X, they will tell you that X is a bad idea and you should probably do Y. I've learned many more efficient ways to do what I was trying to do, good security practices, and so on, because of this culture. Whereas if you ask ChatGPT how to do X, it'll happily tell you how to do X, even if X is a bad idea. (As a bonus, it might make something up if X is impossible to do.)

Besides, ChatGPT's answers are mediocre, by the definition of the word: dead average. You'll never get some guru-level insight from ChatGPT that you would sometimes get from a particularly exceptional answer in SO.

Note: I don't mean to say that SO is perfect, there's plenty of bad answers and it has other problems too. I just think SO does more good than harm to novices who want to become better at the trade, whereas ChatGPT is downright harmful for learning.

- in code: code-level context

- in commits: changeset-level context

- in jira: if you need to provide changeset-level context, point them to the MR/commit log

- in confluence: high-level documentation

- in daily standups: status update; if you need to provide changeset-level context, point them to the MR/commit log

- in release notes: generate automatically from commit log

IMO duplication in documentation should be treated the same as in code – it should be avoided as much as possible.

> Exactly my point. You can call BS on anyone when you are IRL talking to them. People can't hide the vibe of being an idiot.

Unlikely, otherwise people like Elizabeth Holmes or Bernie Madoff wouldn't be able to scam so many investors. Even if you were to talk to them face to face, it's not so easy to differentiate an expert from an eloquent/charismatic bullshitter.

Definitely not. Especially if you're not yourself an expert in the subject.

This was clear before, but it's now even more evident with the advent of ChatGPT, which can generate very elaborate prose on any subject that will sound extremely convincing to most people, but turns out to be nonsensical or pure bullshit upon close inspection by actual experts in that subject.