I get much better results the more thought I put into crafting my prompt. including using llms to help create that prompt. There's definitely a declining rate of return on that time, but thinking about the problem and carefully describing the context can take fairly deep thought. I do think it's in shorter bursts than when doing all of the work, but I get that same feeling of 'bah, where was I?' if I get interrupted while creating the prompt for a more complex feature. On the other hand, I spend a lot less time in flow state while debugging - it's way easier to describe a bug to an llm (often can just paste in the exception or link to error log).
Yes, I certainly don't think taxing the richer is the only dial available. that was my point about the problem being the wages - the labor or non-capital portion of the pie is one of the key things that needs to be adjusted. But the entire system is designed to reward the risk takers. I don't really have any answers. I'm just naively hoping that the the real wealth that technology creates (real-world efficiencies) can somehow benefit everyone, not only the risk takers. That's one of the scarier parts of the AI and robotics boom - it seems virtually all of the benefits are going in one direction. I know we've seen this type of thing before with the industrial revolution, and we somehow got to a point where most of us really did benefit with higher living standards (including the poorest) but it hard seeing most of the really rich ones not doing much to balance that out (most trying their hardest to keep the scales unbalanced).
> Having someone work themselves to a bone with no real hopes of retirement, so you can have other people live a much easier life than they are.
But isn't the real problem that the janitor isn't being paid enough to save for retirement _and_ pay a 'fair' share of taxes? I read about the fear and complaints of high taxes to pay for the lazy, but the actual tax load on countries with strong socialist policies is not really all that much higher than in the U.S.
This sort of thinking reminds me of the old cartoon with three people at a table, one obviously rich person with a whole pile of cookies on his side of the table, and two other ordinary-working-class people each with a couple of cookies, with the rich guy saying to one of the other guys - watch out, that guy wants to take away one of your cookies!'
There are so many working class people convinced that the problem is the other poor people around them, instead of the very small number of people with > 50% of the resources. Those super-rich have somehow convinced everyone that the current balance is best.
I'm not some revolutionary; far from it. I've always hoped that technology would be the thing that allowed virtually everyone to rise up out of poverty (and it has to some degree), but what I've seen instead is the gains from all of this tech we've created in the past 200 years primarily going to a small class of people, and that just makes me sad.
> I ain't giving people something for nothing
but I suspect you do, or would do that for your children or immediate family.
I'm just some dude on the internet, so my opinions are worth exactly what you're paying for them (nothing). But when I try to understand this type of thinking, this is what I come up with:
In the old days of scarce resources (vast majority of civilization), children were expected to 'repay' their elders for the care they received by taking care of them in their old age. And the competition for resources made this idea of keeping those resources for your family only important for survival.
But with the resources available today, the dynamics a very different. Currently only about 25% of total employment is in agriculture, worldwide. In the rich countries this is very significantly less. Canada is 1%, USA is 2% [worldbank]
But we're living with the cultural baggage of generations of scarcity and tribalism, which still shape our policy in a time of incredible resources provided by technology. So instead of more sharing, we choose higher standard of living for ourselves. I know it will take time to change this culturally - generations - but I'm still disappointed it's not happening faster.
I did something like this years ago for a really large team (~50 devs) when first introducing linting into a legacy project. All we did was count the gross total number of errors for the lint run, and simply tracked it as a low-water mark - failing the build if the number was > the existing number of errors, and lowering the stored number if it was lower. So in practice people couldn't introduce new errors. The team was encouraged to use the boy-scout rule of fixing a few things anytime you had to touch a file for other reasons, but it wasn't a requirement. We threw up a simple line chart on a dashboard for visibility. It worked like a charm - total number went down to zero over the course of a year or so, without getting in the way of anyone trying to get new work done.
Bruno’s Threejs course is great. I’m about 2/3 the way through it, taking my time. Well organized and extremely well documented. Highly recommend, if a recommendation from a threejs novice is worth much.
yes, seems the site is completely broken and I suspect someone is in the middle of a panicked reinstall or reconfigure of WP. I feel for them.
[edit] back up now, it seems.
That last statement isn’t true. I know people with a blueberry farm that machine processes (with extra human qa step) blueberries packaged for retail sale.
I use https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader to optionally apply dark themes to websites that don't support themes, or don't provide theme options. It's pretty good, but there are definitely some sites that it doesn't work well enough with. Worth having though, as I do prefer dark themes - I feel my eyestrain has been reduced since using it.
Perhaps this type of functionality (perhaps limited to toggling the prefers-color-scheme setting) is something browsers should consider baking into the default UI/Chrome.
by adding polygamy into the mix, you're moving the goalposts of what is really just an intellectual exercise here. The reality is that these sorts of laws are put in place based on what the lawmakers feel is culturally acceptable (tradition). Pretty confident the people arguing for male-only conscription aren't putting much weight on polygamy in their thinking. What they're really thinking is that they need male soldiers to win their war or defend their country...
Yes, kids being bad influences on each other is sort of inherent in letting kids hang out with each other. This is one thing I don't hear much about when people talk about the advantages of 'free-range' parenting. I get that there are some possible character and problem solving advantages for some kids ( the 'stronger' ones ), but kids in groups without supervision have always been a breeding ground for bullies and outrageous peer pressure.
But those aren't the two options. If loss of life were equal due to equal participation, you'd get 45% loss of each sex (using your 90% of men figure as the potential loss), which (while still devastating) isn't the same argument for losing the breeding capacity of the country.
The reality is that those sorts of rules are very much based on culture tradition ('historic'). It takes a long time for parts of our culture to change. Only a few countries have mandatory service for women (Finland's neighbors Norway and Sweden among them). Israel does as well, but has a large exception on religious grounds.
Also, mandatory service doesn't necessarily mean mandatory combat service, although I don't know how those countries just mentioned manage that.
because the bug tech companies are more likely to pay big $$. There's a huge gap in salary potential between FAANG and the rest. There's always outliers among the rest, but that's generally the case. So if you're optimizing for $$ and prestige, you optimize for getting into FAANG.
universal health care has never meant that every possible heath care need is met without cost. It means that access to the covered services is universally available. Which of course isn't true in an absolute sense (residency requirements etc), but is true in most practical senses.