Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F
Posts
0
Comments
827
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Sometimes people aren’t always trying to convince people to leave cults, and are instead just trying to describe and discuss aspects of reality, like religions

    And they're free to do that, but it doesn't have anything to do with with improving conditions for anyone or deprogramming cultists, so to assert that everyone should spend their time on it is ridiculous, as it amounts to a hobby.

    People should care about reality, reality involves religious people driving how that reality progresses

    People have a limited amount of time in their lives to spend. Learning about a religion, or how it ties into real history, should be done as a hobby by those interested or when it is pragmatic to do so. Arguing with zealots about how their cult ties into history is a pointless endeavor that is really playing their game, and therefore not pragmatic.

    If you disagree with that, you don’t actually care about truth, you are an anti-intellectual.

    Now you're just being unserious.

    Ideas must be considered, explored, examanined, discussed, in order to determine their truth or falsity.

    Not all ideas are equal. If someone says we should genocide an ethnic group, the correct response is to recoil in horror and condemn the idea. When someone makes supernatural claims from their religious cult, the correct response is to make arguments that have at least some chance for a spark of deconversion - not to engage them in a rousing conversation about minutia that will NEVER have any positive impact.

  • That has nothing to do with what I said. You're not convincing people to leave their cults by arguing historical minutia with them.

  • You recognize that it is absurd to complain about recommendations and then recommend something you know nothing about and refuse to stand behind, right?

  • If it makes the code easier to maintain it's good. If it doesn't make the code easier to maintain it is bad.

    Making interfaces for everything, or making getters and setters for everything, just in case you change something in the future makes the code harder to maintain.

    This might make sense for a library, but it doesn't make sense for application code that you can refactor at will. Even if you do have to change something and it means a refactor that touches a lot, it'll still be a lot less work than bloating the entire codebase with needless indirections every day.

  • Religious cults don't care about reality.

  • Joseph Smith was real too. Why should anyone care

  • Nothing outside of the first paragraph here is terribly meaningful, and the first paragraph is just trying to talk past what I said before. I'll reiterate, very clearly.

    I have observed several of my coworkers that used to be really good at their jobs, get worse at their jobs (and make me spend more ensuring code quality) since they started using using LLM tools. That's it. That's all I care about. Maybe they'll get better. Maybe they won't. But right now I'd strongly prefer people not use them, because people using them has made my experience worse.

  • Obviously they should be using Microsoft Access

  • Citation requested

    I keep seeing it over and over again. Anyone that actually has to deal with coworkers using this bullshit that isn't also in the cult is going to recognize it.

    If I had a nickle for every singl yada yada yada

    Sure, there have always been better and worse developers. LLMs are making developers that used to be better, worse.

  • Unfortunately a lot of people are trying to outsource code review to LLMs as well. Also, LLM generated code is more likely to have subtle errors that a human would be very unlikely to make in otherwise mundane code. Errors that are easy to gloss over if you don't take a magnifying glass to it. My current least favorite thing is LLM generated unit tests that don't actually test what they say they do.

  • You are embarrassing yourself.

  • ECS not being serverless was the point. You're constructing a strawman to say an entire set of tools is useless because someone is using them badly, and that's ignorant at best and actively malicious at worst. And don't think I didn't clock that this article you posted is really an advertisement for whatever this viduli thing is.

  • and I've seen a combination of lambda, event bridge, sqs, and ECS used to great effect. Why should an entire ecosystem of tools be judged because it can be used by "illiterate frontenders"

  • This person doesn't seem to know you can have both serverless components and servers working together to use whatever is appropriate for different parts of an application?

  • I read it. Saves a lot of time in the long run

  • If it's as minimal as possible, then the responsible play is to write it thoughtfully and intentionally rather than have something that can make subtle errors to slip through reviews.

  • I'd generally rather be using something else, but in the grand scheme typescript is pretty nice and I prefer it over some other common langs like python.