Everyone knows internet points make someone more of an expert. Especially on websites that have the most inane political discussions frequently and has tanked in quality to only marginally better than Reddit
They are objectively similar in that both are a big multi-decade commitment to a living being that you chose for yourself (yes, you did choose to have the kid unless you live in a country with no birth control access) but saying something is similar is still not making a value comparison
Counterpoint: my handwriting is way harder to read and my hand tired faster than when I was in high school. And I am worse at spelling and my vocabulary has stopped expanding much since I started typing more and reading less
People who want to be childless usually champion the importance of building strong community through friends and neighbors, just because they don’t want kids doesn’t mean they don’t want to contribute to others’ happiness lol. People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids
Getting the girl as a reward is more about misogyny than a the bullying lesson. I haven’t seen grease so I can’t talk about that but I really can’t think of any media examples of where the geeks become jocks and that’s seen as morally correct, which would be the actual antithesis to the lesson above. Also I meant that parents taught that, not adult media… which is for adults
We used to teach kids to be themselves and stand up for what they believe in and their own authenticity and uniqueness even in the face of bullying. That having less or other doesn’t mean your value is lesser or that you should be left out. Now we teach them… conform at all costs so you never have to risk being bullied or lonely?
It’s weird that you equate time spent thinking with intelligence and egotism. Plenty of “normal people” jobs require lots of time spent thinking like art, writing, product and ad design. The only one implying taking time to think equals big brain master race is you
The author thinks that it’s fine to do this for code, which I find strange. I have big time ai:dr; when a commit comes in for me to review and it’s 300 lines for something that is already built into a single function of the framework we use, or I see a (important) comment they forgot to delete. I should not be expected to become more familiar with the authors code than he is himself, and I certainly shouldn’t be the first one verifying that even works.
by ‘I don’t read code,’ I mean: I don’t do line-by-line review as my primary verification method for most product code. I do read specs, tests, diffs selectively, and production signals - and I would advocate escalating to code-reading for specific classes of risk.
Is not at all what people consider “not reading the code” to be
You claim you don’t read the code. People believe you. Later you reveal that actually you do read the code, as well as metrics about the code. You just don’t read line by line and scrutinize them individually. Then you want to say their opinions weren’t grounded, but all that happened is you misrepresented your own argument
Anecdotally, I never feel more awake when having coffee. I can drink coffee at night and sleep great. On the other hand, if I try to sleep too soon after tea I feel very mentally awake and can’t sleep for restlessness. Maybe Qi is real!
If you don't want to, and you don't have to... why do it? If it becomes a necessary thing to keep your job you can learn it then. It will take like a week max. And you will save yourself relearning the newest "correct way to use AI" every 2 weeks.
I didn't learn phonics in school, while my only 2-year younger sibling did (not sure why, maybe related to the school being super low income?) yet I always had a much higher grade reading level. Obviously that's just one point of anecdata, but I don't think phonics is a very big influence on literacy, and why would it be? pronunciation is one tiny part of reading. I think the sheer amount of time spent online is probably the biggest culprit.
Your perspective is quite thoughtful, thank you. I do agree that if you are just fixing a bug or updating function internals, +20/-20 is certainty good enough and I wouldn’t oppose AI used there.
I am going to have to agree to disagree overall though, because the second there is something the AI can’t do the maintenance time for a human to learn the context and solve the problem skyrockets (in practice, for me) in a way I find unacceptable. And I may be wrong, but I don’t see LLMs being able to improve to close that gap soon because that would require a fundamental shift away from what the LLMs are under the hood.