Yes. Productivity tools make programmer time more valuable, not less. This is basic economics. You’re now able to generate more value per hour than before.
(Or if you’re being paid to waste time, maybe consider coding in assembly?)
So don’t be afraid. Learn to use the tools. They’re not magic, so stop expecting that. It’s like anything else, good at some things and not others.
But it’s clearly statistically much safer (https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport)
7 million miles before an accident w FSD vs. 1 million when disengaged.
I agree I didn’t like the feel of FSD either, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Thanks, I’ve never heard this and it’s quite profound. It’s always bothered me that there even is a top speed, and further that mass becomes infinite as it’s approached. But “speed of causality” makes these less strange.
Problem with most chairs (including Aeron) is the bowl-shaped seat pan.
It feels comfy / cradling when you first sit down, and that’s why people buy them. But as the minutes and hours go by, your pelvis is turning inward for lack of central support. Eventually you get back problems.
Google Esther Gokhale for full explanation.
An upwardly curved or at least flat seat pan (think old fashioned upholstered chairs or solid wood chairs) are more human designs.
> I often wonder what Minsky would think about the current generation of AI.
I suspect he'd react similiarly to Chomsky who in, a recent interview (MLST), was highly critical of LLMs as "not even a theory" (of what, i'm not sure... language aquisition? language production? maybe both)
Minksy was more broadly critical of NNs because it wasn't clear how difficult the problems they solved actually were. Until we had a better measure of that, saying "I got a NN to do X" is kind of meaningless. He elaborates in this excellent interview from 1990, beginning at 45:00: https://youtu.be/DrmnH0xkzQ8?t=2700