> LLMs are just replacing consultants as the #1 generator of sloppy code.
The "consultants wrote sloppy code" is one of those memes that never die.
The only thing that differentiates consultants from you is the contract type. All broad strokes accusations are just a consequence of in-house employees feeling threatened by their presence and having a vested interest in portraying themselves as infinitely better than any prospective replacement. You also see the same attitude in junior devs who complain that everyone else's code is shit, but the mess they themselves created is always justifiable and understandable.
If you were moved from your project right now and you placed someone at your spot under probation, I will guarantee that your work would be extensively criticized for being an unmaintainable pile of hacks.
> The "consultants wrote sloppy code" is one of those memes that never die.
Your comment is one of those that feel intuitively right, because what you say makes sense... until faced with reality.
Most consultants that most permanent employees are likely to find are those that will do a crappy job, then be gone when shit hits the fan. Source: anyone who's ever worked with them, myself included. Actually, both sides of the desk. They tend to do crappy jobs because those are the incentives they have.
You can argue till you're blue in the face, but your theory cannot push aside the actual experience of many if not most of us.
Of course, the occasional scenarios where the consultants are solid and doing top-notch work exist, but what matters is the majority of what happens... and it's not good.
So the meme won't die, because it reflects reality.
No, it’s mainly because consulting firms love running their bait-and-switch scam and use their junior consultants to do the actual work while the seniors move on to butter up the next sucker.
One of the interviews I had straight out of university was a firm that asked if I was willing to lie about my work experience for Java consultancy work (Kuber Infotech).
yes, people tend to act differently. not the people they're trying to afect, just random people just minding their business. but it is not an effective deterrent to things like "violent crime".
• Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiple studies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime.
• Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US show little to no positive impact on crime.
> Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco. This rollout is expected to take place over the next 90 days.
In other words, the cameras were added where I've annotated the chart with a black rectangle here: https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0
To my knowledge, Flock doesn't have a time machine offering.
Sorry, this is russell's teapot falacy.
"the burden of proof lies with the person making an unfalsifiable claim, rather than on others to disprove it"
If there is evidence this is related to cameras, then the onus is on companies making these cameras and claims to provide the data. Not on others to prove that they don't stop crime.
There's a reason you always start with the null hypothesis.
Blah blah blah. Trump is trying his stupid, tough businessman TV persona in world politics.
Everyone in the admin is a deeply unserious person being propped up by the paranoia and dumb “patriotism” created by 9/11. You could make an argument that Osama bin Laden was ultimately successful in destroying the US.
He means the COVID vaccine but knows people will make fun of him if he says what he actually believes so he's playing pretend like there is some plague of untested vaccines being used instead of there being one fast tracked vaccine deployed in response to a massive pandemic
The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence.
HN, in particular, loves anything that allows them to discredit science (like the constant banging on about the replication crisis) and replace it with their own pet theory.
>The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence.
I've been shouting this from the roof tops for years now and it's one of the biggest problems we face today. I live in a rural area and 100% of the Joe Rogan-ified men I know are mindless reactionaries. They aren't educated, they don't read books, they don't travel, heck, they barely leave the county. They think they're so smart because they say no to everything anyone else says. They never offer solutions. They never try to fix things. They barely even vote. If you say the sky is blue they will say it's green because they're just oh so smart. It's a massive massive problem.
Is HN particularly drawn to this over other platforms? I gotta say I don’t quite recognize this. In general, I think there’s a good dose of respect for science around these parts, but maybe I’m blind to it.
I see a particular strain more often here and in “rationalist”-adjacent spaces. It’s essentially anti-intellectualism dressed up as intellectual curiosity and debate.
I think it’s also that contrarianism generates an argument they can follow - it’s often much more simplistic along some axis. For example, flat earthers superficially have a really simple model. Throw a ball up, of course it comes down. You look straight ahead and it looks flat. Ask them how GPS works and they can’t follow the math anyways.
Or empathy (Musk) or introspection (Andreessen). None of those things are necessary and could prove to be detriment when you are grinding in the bitmines.
But effectively, that means no empathy. Both Musk and you (explaining Musk) have set it up in such an extreme way that it makes it appear as if empathy is bad and there’s really nothing you should do.
Short of lighting yourself on fire, you could (1) invite them to use an unused space to sleep, (2) donate your time, money, food, water or other goods, (3) advocate for better solutions on a local, state or nation level, or (4) at least not foment hatred against them.
There is a wide variety of empathetic actions that one could do other than burning yourself or nothing. This directly applies to every social, political or economic issue that Musk has tangled with, but instead he sets it up to convince himself and others that actually there’s nothing he can do and empathy is for losers.
reply