But this is just your own personal value judgment, of which clearly you don't like motorcycles. Not everybody shares the same opinion. I.e. there are plenty of people who ride motorcycles safely and legally, you just never hear about them because they never have any incidents. You have just instilled your own value into the tool, one that is not universally shared, the tool itself is still neutral and can even be seen as a positive by somebody else.
What about men, are they allowed to play single player video games with bots in it when they have an option to play with humans? ...or are we only judging women in here?
Men and women playing single player games only with bots is a different beast, because the primary intent isn't to seek connection and emotional support.
To judge men on a bad example one needn't go further than the word "waifu". That's bad.
Also, to flip the previous situation, men will never admit to reading such novels. Men cannot seek emotional support from other men, that's not how it works. So in the case of insufficient emotional support from wife men should "man up" and start drinking.
Border Patrol is doing an operation in Charlotte, NC right now. That is well over 100 miles from any border or coast. So 100 miles itself is fiction, they can just do whatever they want. Who’s gonna stop them?
Isn’t it a feature that people are vocally dissatisfied with what the media reports? To just accept it quietly in silence seems in fact the worse outcome. Even if everyone knows the media reporting is wrong, keeping quiet about it creates a strange meta state where the reporting is true enough that no one wants to publicly question it, because nobody else is questioning it, so it’s unclear whether your fellow citizens accept it as true or not, so you need to assume they believe it’s true.
Someone Else’s Code was understood by at least one human at some point in time before it was committed. That means that another equally skilled human is likely to be able to get the gist of it, if not understand it perfectly.
Code reviews with a human are a two way street. When I find code that is ambiguous I can ask the developer to clarify and either explain their justification or ask them to fix it before the code is approved. I don’t have to write it myself, and if the developer is simply talking in circles then I’d be able to escalate or reject—and this is a far less likely failure case to happen with a real trusted human than an LLM. “Write the code yourself” at that point is not viable for any non-trivial team project, as people have their own contexts to maintain and commitments/projects to deliver. It’s not the typing of the code that is the hard part which is the only real benefit of LLMs that they can type super fast, it’s fully understanding the problem space. Working with another trusted human is far far different from working with an LLM.
It doesn’t seem open and shut at all, why not just deny her entry if they’re so sure at the border? It’s popping up on HN because apparently she’s been detained for over a month… well after her scheduled return flight. why would this ever be necessary?
If your vehicle is ever fully stopped past the line, and the light is red, that would be considered a “blocking the box” traffic violation in most jurisdictions. You technically should not have entered the intersection at all without the ability to fully clear it.
Think of the congestion charge as a charge on the vehicle, rather than on the person, as the stated policy goal is to reduce the number of vehicles in the CBD, not the number of people overall. The Uber is very likely going to continue to be used to service other passengers after dropping you off within the same calendar day, so one potential "fair" solution is to split the congestion charge among the many passengers using that one vehicle. That is your reduced Uber toll charge. But even in this case, it's not really an even split, taxis are going to generate a much higher congestion charge revenue than a single passenger car.
The rideshare toll is already a charge on the vehicle and not the riders. If you share an Uber with two other people, the per-person congestion fee for the trip drops to $0.50.
The flip side of this is that AI tools can enable much faster learning, so the time to go from junior to senior can potentially become much shorter for people who are motivated.
It could (and ultimately I agree it's probably what they should), but that's not what people are seeing juniors do. They're seeing them blindly trust the AI tools and think they don't have to learn what they're doing. So they're building at best a fragle understanding of the code their writing.
Since the results of that approach are predictably bad, I think it will sort itself out. A junior who works like that is already less productive than an LLM in the hands of a skilled engineer, so there isn't really any reason to keep that junior around. But a junior who is using LLMs to rapidly improve their skills can be seen as a good investment even if it takes them some time to become a net positive on the team.
I agree, but I think it'll take far longer to happen than people expect. Kids are making it all the way through college (at state or regional universities) without needing to adjust this approach at all.
These kids are going to be convinced that it's a valid strategy. I'd be surprised if many didn't claim they were being unfaily discriminated against in their first couple of jobs instead of fixing the behavior.
It depends how you use them. If your goal is learning and understanding, you will use LLMs much differently than if your goal is to produce copy-pastable code with as little effort as possible.
Honestly, I do a bit of both depending on the situation. Sometimes I just want a one-off script that does xyz and I don't really care enough to have a deep understanding of every detail. Other times I'm getting a crash course in some advanced concept and in an hour I have knowledge that previously only someone with years of experience in a niche domain (and a lot of patience for my dumb questions) could have given me.
