Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | DrJokepu's commentslogin

Ok well here is a general longevity-related reason why resistance training is important.

Lifting weights also increases bone mass. As you get older, osteoporosis becomes more and more of a concern. You fall one day, and the less bone mass you have built up, the more likely it is that you will lose mobility. There is a strong link between reduced mobility and cognitive decline and also a cascade of other health problems. Old person + hip fracture = significantly increased mortality, and the way to prevent this is by building up bone mass while you still can.


You could say it’s the real smoking gun. With significant blast radius.


> first step in any kind of pressure campaign

Not how corporate politics work.

> low stakes

Not how corporate politics work.


No, what you’re describing still requires you to do some actual work, and also, while you work there, there is still some level of accountability. A much, much better grift is coaching.

Like, an AI coaching session for executives at the yearly executive retreat. You show up, spend a few hours going through some nonsense slides ChatGPT put together for you, you charge an eye watering fee for it, HR or whoever organizes it will gladly pay for it because it will make them look all cutting edge in front of the CEO, by the next day everyone will forget about it. No accountability at all!


I mean I don’t have a horse in this race, but I don’t think this is a good example.

If this is a senior enough position to justify expecting this level of specialization, that compensation is not nearly high enough, so issuing this H-1B would add downwards pressure on the compensation of American worker.

If this is not a very senior role, the American worker’s interest is that you find someone with a less specific background, compatible enough so that they can be trained.


Yes we hired a fresh graduate with relevant research experience who is being trained.


The person you’re responding to has explicitly said that they worked there after an acquisition (so it’s not like they have chosen to work for Cisco) and that they only worked there briefly afterwards. I don’t understand why you’re being so hostile and judgmental.


Don’t forget about the “smoking gun”


But how do they scale the reviewing of the agentic output? Or they just blindly trust it and worst case scenario they get to write a sob story on HN about how Claude has deleted the production db?


> But how do they scale the reviewing of the agentic output? Or they just blindly trust it and worst case scenario they get to write a sob story on HN about how Claude has deleted the production db?

Thats a fantastic question. Here's my take: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47917314 - would love your thoughts on it.

In short, I think you're asking a billion dollar question - how do we solve the verification, validation, and QA bottleneck?

The way I handle it for my personal projects is I invest tremendous time and effort into writing thorough test and validation suites.

I bet the next billion dollar companies will be those addressing this verification, validation, and QA bottleneck.


A company can operate aimlessly for a long time and carry along due to inertia and/or monopoly position. So chances are nobody (competent) is reviewing it.


Have the agents review their own output, obviously. What could go wrong


> I recall a math instructor who would occasionally refer to variables (usually represented by intimidating greek letters) as "this guy".

I also had an instructor who was doing that! This was 20 years ago, and I totally forgot about it until I have read your comment. Can’t remember the subject, maybe propositional logic? I wonder if my instructor and your instructor have picked up this habit from the same source.


I recall my old chemistry/physics teacher doing it too - "now THIS guy, he's really greedy for electrons" and stuff like that.


Maybe they're French? They tend to do that, translating celui


My instructor for Epsilon Delta proofs and limits would always talk about "his cousin in Romania" picking the Epsilon and him picking the Delta.

i.e. forall epsilon > 0. exists delta > 0. forall d with |d| < delta. |f(x) - f(x+d)| < epsilon.

If we had a proof, no matter what epsilon his cousin from Romania picked, we could always find a new delta which would satify his cousin and let him pick the worst d in range.

This worked better than just saying "pick any epsilon", as it convayed the adversarial approach better.

Another book I read used the Devil as the one you are trying to convince, but it's nowhere near as fun as "his cousin from Romania".


I think you are very fortunate. I have worked with plenty of software developers like that, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them have been like that.


Then I was not the smartest person in the room could be the other possibility.

And yes, there were always incompetent folks but those were steered by smarter ones to contain the damage.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: