You should be learning alongside the llm through the research phase of anything. Updating your understanding of what is possible and best practices with rigorous checks and limiting scope to a high fidelity to leave little room for doubt. In-line commenting and questioning and asking for more passes on the living document of the area you are working on and then judiciously breaking it down further when you think there is too broad a scope for an llm to understand and synthesise properly.

If you do end up with too much vagueness, you need to limit scope more or break up the feature, implementation etc to be specific and applies enough to again, properly research and decide the plan.

I guess this is not so easy because lot of it depends on your own ability of reading comprehension, but I've had great success learning niche topics because I research (as a sub agent usually) essentially any topic that is mysterious until every level of the puzzle is properly mapped out to the specificity required.

Do I think most people are doing this? No. So I guess the statistics make sense. It's not intuitive to many people I think - because as you said, it's an embodiment of literature that is a tangled web of thought patterns and perspectives, so you need to pare it's answers down to the specific level, direction and area of ideas you want to get out of it. Way easier to do than it sounds, but it requires finesse in comprehension rather than getting lazy with it - normalcy of deviance comes to mind.

However, I would think I'm not alone in that I'm generally wanting to do good while also wanting convenience, I know that really every bit of consumption I do is probably negative in some ways, and there is no real "apolitical" action anyone can take.

But can't I at least get annoyed and take my money somewhere else for the short amount of time another company is doing it better?

Yes, if openAI suddenly leaps forwards with codex and pounds anthropic into the dust, I'll likely switch back despite my moral grievances, but in a situation where I can get mildly motivated to jump over for something that - to me - seems like a better morality without much punishment to me, I'll do it.

Combined with the fact that there are many EV's on the market of similar quality, it is clear you do not need to purchase from Tesla.

So you can avoid enriching someone who is in direct opposition to climate action while also making your own move to EVs. You can have your cake and eat it too.

I also take issue with "petty grievance". I do not know and will never meet Musk, there is no personal feud here.

I simply do not believe he is doing good things for the world, and the quality of the product offered does not force my hand in any way, so I will simply choose to take my money elsewhere. No petty grievance involved.

Whether you are trying to reduce emissions or ignoring it is a separate concern than finding appropriate projected climates for agriculture etc.

We shall see if true.

Internet freedom is harder to legislate, but with enough backing you can legislate things in a way to make it difficult for the common person to access certain websites, which is certainly impactful.

It hasn't happened yet but there is nothing to say it wouldn't happen with enough time and backing of certain politicians.

That's the part I'm sad about - that we won't get emulated games that look and feel better due to faster hardware in the future. Money isn't an issue for me.

So TBBT is a part of the overall zeitgeist, an example of a show of its type that was very successful.

You bet if a sci-fi show was number 1, than other sci-fi shows would be being made and better funded.

Soccer values attributes drugs exaggerate - but it has a skill component that is more important vs cycling. Soccer also has breaks and substitutes and ways to slow the game down to close the gap.

I'm not ignorant to the tactics and technique required in cycling, but its a smaller part of the sport vs tactics and skill in football.

So it's not as important to dope. But yes, still happens.

For better or worse is up to the individual opinion, but its not really weird to have a strong view on a polarising figure, especially one with the influence of musk.

It took me a month to realise that the staff developers very much revelled in and protected their bad code and bizarre domain choices.

It was so far gone that there was no way to get rid of them and the product was just slowly dying and burning the remaining cash.

Then the mergers happened and they all got let go, only retaining the name for brand power and the entire stack was quietly moved over to another similar product which was rebranded.

Separately, there were absolutely very large consultancies that had a programming style/rules based on making their implementations difficult to read/modify, needing to call their COE back in to fix their code or add features - with it being very hard to modify. Talking entire codebase structured with ridiculous levels of abstraction and annoying code style. Bad integrations requiring their tooling to work and make sense of etc.

They target traditional orgs where the management just wants to get a project through and then bleed them over years.

Because plenty of people say they are OCD too, but they don't mean the diagnosed condition. And it's quite different to "being tidy and needing things to be ordered" that the common vernacular makes it out to be.

Same as ADHD. Plenty of people who say they are "a bit ADD" mean something else.

It's a truly awful condition that is not the "can't concentrate need to play games all day!" Condition the 00's characterised it as.

The trick (which is very hard) is to recognise when one of your own arguments is one of convenience, emotion, illogical etc. And not be biased towards logical fallacies against others.

But this does not mean that your average person on hacker news doesn't tend towards better educated and more rational discussion than large amounts of the public. It also means hacker news tends towards specific blindspots, sure.