By that I mean that, rather than let the LLM do the entire structure, I take the time to create the full hierarchy of abstractions and actors that I want my code to do. I decide, at the UML level, how abstractions will sit and interact — and then I make the LLM implement those gaps.

The key thing here is that, by doing this, I DO know how the code works. I may not know how each unit is implemented, but I know each unit’s responsibilities and how they interact with one another. I’ve found that LLMs are HORRIBLE at writing decent abstractions, regardless of how much prompting and skills I’ve given it. It will always get the job done, but it will often be unmaintainable and require bigger and heavier refactors as I introduce more and more requirement changes.

But by flexing my basic design skills, I don’t have those issues. Future refactoring fit into easy abstractions that I’ve designed. And by documenting it up front, I also have what becomes a living document on how this work will turn out.

It takes a few hours up front to plan ahead, but it makes the LLMs job easier and use less tokens, and it makes the code better long term. I don’t care if one unit is suboptimal, as long as the abstraction is right — because at worst I can change an implementation for a better one later.

I can totally identify with that feeling. It must be how professional mathematicians are feeling as well.

This is ok. You will process the change, and you'll come out stronger for having done so. It takes time to decide what you want to do in the world, and even more time to decide how to react to the world changing and moving away from your planned path. And it takes even more time to actually see if the world is moving in a way incompatible with your plans.

It will be tempting to cycle into negative predictions and negative self-talk. This will not help, and will not be productive.

You, ryandvm, built a career around something you love, and that is amazing. You can choose to do it again, to find something you love, to be stalwart about how you work and who you work with, or any number of other options. The thing that nobody can change is your agency.

I struggle with the nature of work every day, and have for months. It has caused me to re-evaluate what I work on, why I do it, how I structure my finances, where my kids go to school, literally everything. Still the ship turns, as it must.

Reach out if you want to chat.

My problem with AI is that it now excels at the part of the job that was my favorite (writing code) and it leaves me to do the part that I suck at (being a manager). In 18 months or so my job satisfaction has gone from pretty high to abysmal.

> In her appeal, Harpe said her husband was a certified federal law enforcement officer and that every search was conducted for law enforcement purposes.

> “The violation occurred because I gave my husband, who is a certified law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, access to my Flock account,” Harpe wrote. “Every search he conducted was for law enforcement use only and not for personal gain.”

There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility. They believe they should have unrestricted access to everyone else and that they are above us all.

Firing her was not excessive, it is the bare minimum. Officers should be held to a higher standard, not lower. She and her husband should be in a jail cell.

Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure. They completely fail to understand that there exists people to whom you cannot grant access and screening people in advance probably impossible. Some cop checks all the boxes, gets access to databases, then their partner leaves them and they are now no longer safe to grant access.

I don't understand why it's hard to grasp that surveillance tools are dangerous and rather using them to protect others, law enforcement will use these tools to do bad things. It's as if that we assume that cops are better people and follow rules better. Even in countries that actually train their police force this isn't remotely true.

The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.

He described it at 'strip mining', 'rude', and said that many grad students, who are given problems like these as a part of their training, had the rug pulled out from under them (because its customary to let people know you are working on something to prevent this kind of thing).

And your whole analysis is that Tao is worried about his 'identity', status, and 'being a differentiator'.

This is projection on your part. People have values that bear no resemblance to yours and it would behoove you to learn to recognize that.

> I feel like the point is still being missed, and it's very similar to the way software engineers are trying to cope. The argument you are making "Well yes now this part of math we will not need to do again, but now we can do this instead" however the issue with most people just don't want to do that....

> Like who are we kidding, the type of nerds who were attracted to math and software were into it because we saw it as an art-form, it was a craft, it was being the only one in your city to be able to solve a complicated math problem, it was immortalizing yourself because you discovered a proof and added to the ever expanding human knowledge.

> Imagine a leather workman who's life passion is making insanely high quality handbags, who takes joy in knowing everything he touches will last someone a lifetime and give them joy everytime they use it. And then not gradually, but almost overnight someone comes to his door and tells him we can make bags 50 times better than you at 1/tenth the price. But don't you worry, you can make more money overseeing the factory, or selling people on how good this bag is, and explaining that to them.

> I mean, ok, that just is not what I wanted to do with my life. I never wanted to be a manager, I never wanted to be a salesman, I never wanted to be a writer. A craft I enjoy doing has been taken away from me, I should be allowed to mourn, I don't care that I can do something else since I never liked doing it in the first place. I enjoyed solving problems and writing code, I don't care if people say "well thats never what programming was about it was actually about becoming a manager all along" I never wanted to be a manager, I never wanted to manage, I never wanted to be a proof reader.

No biologist has ever complained, "Gee whiz, it's so unfortunate that we already have a brain to study. It's all so meaningless! It would be so much better if we had to construct the first-ever brain from scratch."

I'm sympathetic to mathematicians but this does not paint them in a good light.

If your primary purpose is SOLVING the problem, you should be ecstatic! If your primary purpose was rent-seeking so you could play with puzzles*, you'd be very upset.

* I find this characterization overly harsh, but if you're mad about your problem being solved, maybe you weren't in it for the right reasons

  Temba, his arms wide stdio
  
  Darmok on the ocean
      Kira at Bashi "Hello, World!\n"

      Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra 0
  Darmok and Jalad on the ocean

Dog's have very good hearing, and their hearing must help them to model the world around them, to understand what different objects in the world are.

So I think it's less about linguistics and more about our audiovisual mapping of the physical world.

Then again, that must be where the origin of language evolved from in the first place.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49028037

Namecheap banned a few domain names purely based on an ambiguous tweet that got 6 likes

https://x.com/Namecheap/status/1489485337885921284

Namecheap suspended Imgur in 2013 for 1 CSAM image out of millions

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276648

Namecheap snipes your domains

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28732510

so costs need to go down (-human support + ai automation)

and prices go up (they increased i think .com 3 times this year alone)

This is a report from the developer forums where people are supposed to report these bugs.

The second response in the thread is an Apple engineer acknowledging the bug, assigning a number, and asking the person to retest when new builds are available.

If you only read the comments here you'd come away with a completely different impression of what's happening.

One of my Macs has developed the most insane habit of losing audio output capability, and then tries to route it to another one - a feature I didn’t even know existed.

I got one of these! I called my New York doctor in a panic because apparently my kidneys and liver were failing. We ordered a bunch of rush tests, they came back fine, then we did a bunch more to confirm. That was a lot of stress, wasted medical professionals' time and cost for a single person. (The only reason I didn't go straight to ER is I was doing my start-up at the time and, America being America, didn't have the best health insurance.)

I don't think my doctor reported that result as being wrong. I certainly didn't–I was too busy confronting my impending doom. So my HDHP wound up paying for not only the un-needed follow-up tests, but also for the Theranos test. (I don't remember if I paid a deductible. It was at a Walgreens.)

> She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon

She's maintaining access to powerful people. It's a well-known problem with access journalism.

It did for the author because this is a service she provides. To even suggest that Elizabeth Holmes didn't really harm anyone because she in prison for investor fraud, and then have the nerve to call that distinction "nuance", is absurd.

Theranos generated around 7.8 million test results for Arizona consumers alone. Of those, roughly 834,000 had to be voided or corrected. These were real people getting medical information they relied on. Some received terrifying and incorrect indications of prostate cancer. Pregnant women received results suggesting they were miscarrying when they weren't.

It's like claiming a blood bank supervisor didn't put patients at risk by giving them incompatible blood transfusions, simply because the state only managed to prosecute them for pirating the inventory software they were using.

She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon.

She did the same in her newsletter for Logan Paul when he was trying to move beyond his image as a toxic YouTube prankster, and spent months embedded with him and his brother.

Then did the same for Anthony Scaramucci, when he had to rebuild his credibility in the investment world, as his bitcoin hedge fund was about to go nowhere. Pompliano opens with his fascination with astrology. Astrology!

Call monsters what they are. The victims deserve it.

I’ve been around a lot of bullshitters my whole life, and my immediate reaction is to go “this person is full of shit, not worthy of my attention, kthxbye”

But I’ve noticed that most people when faced with the same person can’t help but try and figure out what makes them tick, or their redeeming qualities, or if even anything can be redeemed. It seems to be a social equivalent of “nerd sniping”; most people just have a very hard time declaring “this person is worth 0 additional seconds of my time” and actually following through.

See also ppl in toxic relationships, who will complain to their friends incessantly about how bad the other person is and how they know they need to get out of it, only to rarely get out of it.

At best I can say that it makes you think about things like deceit and honesty/accuracy in media, but it definitely didn't blow my mind like it apparently did for this author. After 3 hours I was just exhausted from watching these peoples' tortuous attempts to avoid giving a direct answer to any question.

“You sit there believing you’re watching a documentary about a woman who deceived the world, only to discover that you’re also watching a demonstration of how easy it is to deceive you.”

I couldn’t agree more.

(Former grad student in math here who has spent whole weeks formalizing in Lean lemmas that would be considered by professional mathematicians writing a mathematics text / paper as obvious ("without loss of generality we can assume that....", "it should be clear that...")

Probably very few or none.

These systems (mostly) don't help you discover new mathematics. They are a tool for formalization.

It just turns out that combining them with LLMs is the secret sauce. LLMs have quite a bit of creativity but make a lot of mistakes. The Lean typechecker never makes a mistake but has no creativity. Get them to work together in an iterative loop and you get what we have now.

To save you some searching:

https://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/nieuwsfoto's/guests-includ...