more precisely, it is synecdoche!

Japan isn’t a federal government, so the decision can happen at the national level because prefectural and local governments zoning ability came from the national government.

I don’t think the federal government could de facto change this, though in practice they have levers available.

it chokes on my mac also

I agree with the general sentiment that the structure of society is going to change, but I don't know what the satisfying solution is. It's hard to imagine not participating will work, or even be financially viable for me, for long.

I agree. I'm the AI luddite on my team of red team security engineers, but I'm still using it in very limited use cases. As much as I disagree with how the guardrails around AI are being handled, I still need to use it to stay relevant in my field and not get canned.

I'm already adding "Agentic Workflows" as a skill in my LinkedIn profile. Cringed hard at that, but oh well...

What if the hiring managers at the jobs you'd actually prefer to work at also cringe when they see it on your profile?

It's becoming so ubiquitous, I highly doubt it. At worst I think a manager would just see it as fluff, but not a negative.

I hope the hiring managers I would actually want to work for would see it as a red flag on resumes

At this point, I'd assume those hiring managers are also being forced to use AI in their jobs (or pretend, at least) and probably wouldn't read too much into it if it's not a substantial portion of their resume. I do feel the same way, though.

Why? It's just the name of the game, everyone gets it. Especially if you're a generalist/frontend type.

It's simply not a game I'm interested in playing. I'll find something else to do instead, leave the AI jockeying to others.

I asked coz know several managers who would look upon it as a red flag and I suspect OP would probably prefer to work for them rather than AI sheep.

That's actually a really good point.

I'm using claude but then refuse to do much cleaning up of what it spews. Im leaving that for the PR reviewers who love AI and going through slop. If they want slop, I'll give them the slop they want.

Not advocating that people should follow this but:

As someone that loves cleaning up code, I'm actually asking the vibe coders in the team (designer, PM and SEO guy) to just give me small PRs and then I clean up instead of reviewing. I know they will just put the text back in code anyway, so it's less work for me to refactor it.

With a caveat: if they give me >1000 lines or too many features in the same PR, I ask them to reduce the scope, sometimes to start from scratch.

And I also started doing this with another engineer: no review cycle, we just clean up each other's code and merge.

I'm honestly surprised at how much I prefer this to the traditional structure of code reviews.

Additionally, I don't have to follow Jira tickets with lengthy SEO specs or "please change this according to Figma". They just the changes themselves and we go on with our lives.

Favorited. I was talking to someone (non-dev) yesterday who prototypes with Claude and then goes back/forth with the lead engineer to clean it up and make it production worthy (or at least more robust). I like that model.

Just started work on a project. Greenfield and "AI accelerated". PRs diffs are in the range of 10s of thousands of lines. In the PR, it is suggested to not actually read all the code as it would take too long.

If you push a change, or you approve, you're responsible for the change and its effects later. Regardless of size. If change is too big, tell your teammates its too big to review and to refactor to bite-size with their great coding agents. Use AI models also for review of large changes, consider a checklist . Setup CI and integration tests (also can be AI assisted)

Agreed, and something will go wrong (as every junior has experienced). You cannot lay blame on the AI when git blame shows your name.

Oh there's plenty of CI, linting, etc. Half of which is not properly plumbed in.

Yeah, but look at all those green tests!

I thought the de facto policy was that the individual remains responsible in a team context.

That attitude is so last-month, get with the program!

Sweet summer child.

based. our CEO has made it clear that we're expected to use LLMs to shit out as many features as we can as quickly as we can, so that's exactly what I'm doing. Can't wait to watch leadership flail around in a year or two when the long term consequences start to become apparent

> when the long term consequences start to become apparent

Choose your own story!

and then a) programmers become relevant again and slowly fix all this crap, b) Claude 7.16 waltz through fixing things as it goes.

You'll just get laid off and they'll be onto the next hype cycle as visionaries.

No. I'm doing it because I care more whether I can live with myself than whether I impress people with the name of who I work for. Hence much of my recent comment history here, for example. I don't want any of these people getting the idea they should want me to work with them, either. I do want my name on every industry blacklist I can possibly get it on. Those will eventually be revealed - remember Franklin's dictum, fellas! That shit always comes out in the end - and I look forward to that day with pleased and eager anticipation.

At the moment I'm more looking at menial work for one of the local universities. Money is money, and my needs are small; the work is honest, I still should have a decade or so of physical labor left in me, and it carries the perk of free tuition for the degree I never had time for. I would have the time and energy to write, perhaps, even! And, however badly the people in charge are running things lately, the world will always need someone good at cleaning a toilet. (And I am already pretty good at cleaning a toilet!)

That's nice for you but other people have kids to feed and don't particularly care about your little crusade, which will fail.

Theres no reason to assume that. Its equally likely trying to replace jobs with AI is the "little crusade" thst no one cares about and will fail.

I wouldn't say no one cares about it, and I am not at all sure it will fail - nor that it should; there are better futures available from here, also.

Honestly, if I'd cottoned on quicker to the guy's real problem, I would've treated him more gently sooner. It's not quite true that an addict can't help himself, and in the place where that's false is the hope of recovery. But to blame people for getting hooked on the shit Silicon Valley is pushing, would be like blaming people for getting an opioid habit when the hardest imaginable versions of that drug were handed out like candy for decades.

Exactly like, in fact. Some people on this forum have BOP numbers waiting for them. You know who you are. In time, so will everyone.

Go look in a mirror, not at me. That's where the argument is waiting that you're feeling urged toward.

What you just said was an elaborate tu quoque fallacy. You aren't comprehending my basic point, which is that individual ethical decisions are not going to make a difference when all of the broader incentives are causing people to act otherwise.

The idea behind principles is that you're supposed to stick to them anyways.

Lets put aside the fact that none of you have coherently outlined what supposed principles are relevent here. The thing worth noting is, the argument presented in the article seems to be consequentialist, and I'm saying it will fail to produce the consequences the author supposedly wants.

I have at no point been less than direct, straightforward, and clear. You have radically misunderstood my argument because you are motivated to do so.

Mr. Kingsbury, author of the article under discussion, has considerably better sense than I, and so far as I know never comments here. You've radically misunderstood his argument too, though, for what little that knowledge may aid.

Really weird that you're basically advocating people to not have principles if they don't align with "broader incentives". Also lol at you pulling the "some people have kids to feed" bullshit in a thread where we're all making way more money than most people.

I think some of you do not have a grasp on systems thinking at all, and its embarassing for people who supposedly frequent communities like these. I'm not advocating anything. I'm making a descriptive statement. I do worry that basic lack of understanding between descriptive and normative claims is contributing to the confusion here.

That's rich out of somebody who obviously has no concept of signaling theory. Not to mention, of course, that "systems thinking" makes no comment on human ethics or morality. Unlike some, the people working in the field seem generally to know their limits.

But you're right that clarity is important. In that spirit, it was your cowardly effort to excuse your behavior, and your obviously motivated effort to ameliorate its moral odium which you feel, that I criticized. This was and is in the course of helping you fully grasp that whatever is driving you, here, feels unconscionable to you because it is unconscionable and you know it, just as you understand in your heart that there is no excuse. Else you would not strive so here, in the hope someone else may supply what you failed to achieve alone.

I don't know just what it is that you're feeling so exercised with guilt over. Nor do I care. You know. For the rest of us, I confide, it will eventually become part of the public record, and I'm happy to wait that day without further unprompted comment here.

I know lots of families who feed their kids just fine on something less than a quarter million US a year. Just about all the families I know with kids, these days.

If we want to get into anecdotes... most of the people I know with kids are seriously struggling. And that aligns more closely with economic data than what you said. Most people do not have a robust emergency fund at all.

I understand why you would rather "get into anecdotes" than answer my point. I don't understand why you keep posting, save perhaps that "the guilty flee where no man pursueth." The account you're using is without history or reputation. All you have to do to make this end is stop.

I did address your point by directly refuting it, and you responded with a total non sequitur. Are you okay buddy? I'm making a relatively basic argument about the ability of households to make ends meet and you're quoting bible passages, looking into my account history, and making random accusations. The guilty flee where none pursueth? You're literally attempting to prosecute me, lmao. But please, "pursueth" away. You are the one who looks a little weird in this scenario.

I made my account today because I wanted to comment on this article and I didn't have an account previously. Is that a crime? Are you going to report me to the thought police? Lmao some of the people on here are a little intense. Maybe take some deep breaths and realize I'm not trying to harm you. I wish you the best. I just disagree with the way you think on this particular issue.

It's remarkable to me that you should be so concerned with my perspective, if you believe me insane as you now claim. (What will it be next? That I have too much time on my hands? That's often next from here.)

Evidently you are concerned with my perspective, considering the effort you keep going to to continue to gain its benefit. I've explained why I think that is, and I'm not likely to change my mind at this point. You should really think about why it means so much to you to keep trying to negotiate otherwise.

Literally every single one of your responses is an attempt to deflect by psychologizing your opponent. It’s very transparent.

Then it should be easy for you to dispose of me, shouldn't it? If you can see right through me, I mean, the way you say you can. And yet. And yet.

If you keep telling yourself that, do you think it will eventually help you sleep at night?

What makes you think none of us have families?

If you have a family and you are doing what this guy is suggesting, that is extremely concerning to me. Seeking a low wage, menial job at a time when costs are rising due to the oil spike? Dumbest move you could make.

I said "menial." I did not say "low wage." And given the utter footlessness of your own situation as you yourself continue to show it, you are bold indeed in presuming to advise anyone else on their finances.

But you continue to astonish me with your assumptions! Is it a gambling debt? Get a little too happy on Robinhood or Polymarket, maybe? Were you really really counting on a crypto tax holiday? To keep from having to tell the wife, maybe?

On a side note, the mods here aren't great fans of either my opinions or my stubborn insistence on their accurate expression (1) but apparently that distaste extends not quite so far that they see fit to ban me. (Or not at the time of this writing, anyway.) No blame, of course; even if the place is looking sort of shabby and down at the mouth these days, at least when not seen through eyes of nostalgia for the high times of the 2010s, this is still their house.

Don't worry, though! Once the rate limiter is satisfied, I'll be right back here and we can talk about how you keep deceitfully attributing to me a statement you yourself made up. But I hope instead to find by then (assuming you are in the US as your usage leads me to do) that you have called the National Gambling Addiction Hotline, which is open 24/7 at (844) 779-2637, or failing that the SAMHSA helpline at 988. Help is available, but you do have to take the first step.

(1) I appreciate this is my own view of the matter, and that others will reasonably describe the thing in different terms. Nevertheless.

"Money is money, and my needs are small."

That's what you said. Sorry but anyone supporting a family should not be thinking like this. Supporting a family is very expensive.

Because I don't like the feeling my conscience gives me by doing something I think is evil and bad. Some people have moral lines that they won't cross when finding jobs.

If my competitors are filling their flour with sawdust, guess I got to just do the same?

No, we won't do the same, but enough people will that it doesn't matter. Such is the way it goes.

Your moral compass is skewed. Customers don't care what tools we use, they just want products that work. Is a wheat farmer who ploughs a field with horses more moral than one who uses a tractor? The resulting flour tastes the same either way.

Its not the same. Its clearly shit to replace flour with sawdust.

Having different opinions on AI/LLMs doesn't make the use of it the same as replacing flour with sawdust.

The AI 'image' slop for example, i don't think its bad. But i also don't think it takes anything from a real artist. It takes jobs from people with drawing skills but it doesn't change anything for an artist.

This is only true if the new technology is actually significantly useful. Which so far AI has not proven to be. Theres no reason to assume people using AI will, on the long term, outcompete those who don't.

if an 1800 word post is just too long I think you are cooked. This is the nicest thing I can say on the subject.

It's not that 1800 words is too long, it's that I've seen probably 40-50 (at least) posts, analyses, and bloviations about Mythos since it came out. If the author doesn't very quickly get to why I should read their particular 1800 words over the other similar and competing tens of thousands of words on the subject, they are "cooked".

They could just be writing for themselves, or their friends, or for people with the patience to read. You are making assumptions about how badly they want to reach your particular eyeballs. They might not care about trying to win over people with a minimal attention span as much as you think they do.

What makes you think your comment was worth reading?

Open gemini chrome sidebar, type "sum." Watch the magic happen.

Some of these fonts and transitions I like a lot, but sometimes it feels like there are a few too many fonts on screen.

It has a plaintext version which I appreciate (though I wish it were actual plaintext instead off formatted html with the aesthetics of plaintext)

I opened it, it told me it was impossible to build a house in california for less than 350K, i closed it

Same. And I'm not even focused on whether this is a reasonable number or not. The quoted tweet also says "But our politicians would rather spend that on genocide." And I'm asked to evaluate whether this is "accurate" with a thumbs up or thumbs down. (According to Mentwire, it is not accurate). So I'm evaluating both the cost of housing the homeless, but also whether politicians would rather fund genocide. So, this seems like it is not really an intellectual CAPTCHA, but rather an ideological CAPTCHA.

And just to disclose my biases, I would tend to believe that $350k is an absurdly high figure and that politicians are obviously not holding a vote where they are forced to choose between ending homelessness and funding genocide. But I believe that people who disagree with me can be considered intelligent and not "too dumb to pass an intellectual CAPTCHA".

Let's assume that the tweet is proposing to spend $10 billion per year to end homelessness in the entire US, since it contrasts it with genocide which is clearly a national objective not a local one.

A quick Google gives on the order of 1 million homeless people in the US. That's $10k per person per year which is the correct order of magnitude for the price of housing someone.

I believe OP missed the "per year" in the tweet that's why they are comparing to house prices rather than the yearly cost of housing, which is obviously much smaller because houses last longer than 1 year.

Perhaps the test was that if you finish the test you haven't passed it.

Seriously. And not even to build a house, but to make a single person not homeless. Give me a break.

There was a healthcare strike that ended this month which counts as added jobs iirc

Good callout. I didn't take that into account.

There is a CORS preflight check for POST requests that don't use form-encoding. It would be somewhat surprising if these weren't using JSON (though it wouldn't be that surprising if they were parsing submitted JSON instead of actually checking the MIME-type which would probably be bad anwyay)

Sure, but if I want to host my static files on a website where they are easily cached... cloudflare also offers this product?