On my team we all trust each other to be fairly direct. On the flip side, “softening” a remark can signal to the recipient that you’re open minded to other solutions. “We should do X.” and “how would you feel about doing X?” accomplish the same thing but the second one fosters more psychologically safe discussion in my opinion.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47331367

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

When I first had learned that rust had this concept of “opt-in” mutability, I thought that it must then be an accepted pattern that we make as little as possible be mutable in an attempt to help us better reason about the state of our program. I had come to rust after learning some clojure so I was like “ahh! Immutable by default! So everything’s a value!”

But in reality it feels like rust code is not “designed” around immutability but instead around appeasing the borrow checker - which is actually pretty easy to reason about once you get the hang of the language. But it’s a ton to learn up front

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47111513

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

The message of universal suffrage vs. that of preventing an out group from “stealing” an election are not far apart semantically. Same with workers rights - in practice the worker protection laws that were passed in Italy at this time were so full of loopholes and qualifications that ultimately the workers do not gain power in that system.

It is this fair, in my view, to question the spirit of the manifesto in the first place.

I generally consider myself a YIMBY but I think you make a good point and I found it very uncharitable for the parent comment to characterize it as whining. Who wants to spend 10 hours a week in traffic?

Acknowledging that I don’t know you, and that I haven’t seen this private conversation, this post definitely reads like you just wanted to put a former colleague on blast semi-anonymously. I came to these comments to see if anyone felt the same.

> We probably disagree on this, but I don’t believe that there’s a basis for an assumption of privacy here

In my view you crossed the line when you included his gender, his current role and employer, and two former employers.

As another commenter stated, ChatGPT has over 700 million WAU. There are only 4.4 million SWEs in the US. I think it’s caught on

I will point out that these companies have existing relationships with advertisers because they have massive, sticky userbases and advanced targeting tools. The average consumer is absolutely using ChatGPT for personal use, and maybe Copilot at work if applicable. And they're using Google's AI by proxy when they perform searches.

If OpenAI were to roll out advertising tooling, I have no doubt advertisers would flock there to try it out.

Additionally, the other thing I think OpenAI leads in is Product. Google is amazing at creating technologies and awful at creating products. I think OpenAI can be positioned to win based off of that alone.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45676456

Points: 5

# Comments: 1

Less snarky: getting funding and making a living in academia, which is the most accessible way to be a scientist, has been cutthroat since long before this administration. If it were more accessible, or if staying alive weren't so damn expensive, I think we'd see more curiosity-driven science being performed.

Also, I don't believe one negates the other. As an engineer, my work satisfies my curiosity / desire to build, and I would do it for $50k, but I'm not gonna take a pay cut to prove how curious I am.