The question is how do our individuals, and more importantly our various social and economic systems handle it when exactly what humans can do to provide value for each other shifts rapidly, and balances of power shift rapidly.

If the benefits of AI accrue to/are captured by a very small number of people, and the costs are widely dispersed things can go very badly without strong societies that are able to mitigate the downsides and spread the upsides.

The tariffs are one thing, and pissed people off, but the rhetoric is what has really done the damage.

It’s viewed as a complete betrayal, and as a real and serious threat to Canadian sovereignty.

I work for an American company from Canada, and have changed my financial planning because I’m not sure if I’ll be able to keep doing that.

When I see a 70% drop I’m surprised it isn’t more.

Given its performance I wouldn't dare trust it with any of my daily driving even if it was free.

And even those people will only understand a limited aspect or perspective.

So the people commenting can only comment based on their outside impressions and emotions about generalities and how the specific implementation details seem to affect they as an end user.

I try to take anything said with that in mind. There is information in the comments about user experience but anything else is at the level of bullshitting at the bar with your friends, and not to be taken personally.

This is part and parcel of working for a visible/impactful organization. People will constantly write things, good and bad about the organization. Most of them, good and bad, will be wrong. They'll be based on falsehoods, misinterpretations, over-simplifications, political perspectives, etc.

This becomes a problem when people in the company assume that because most of the feedback is nonsense, that all of it is nonsense. That is especially temping when the feedback is hurtful to you or critical of your team or values.

I found a bit of Neil Gaiman's MasterClass very helpful when reading such feedback. Very roughly Gaiman said that when someone is telling you something doesn't work for them, and what you should do to fix it, you should believe them that it doesn't work for them, but that the author is much better placed than the reader to know how and if to fix it.

In my context I try to understand why someone is saying something, what information I can take from it, and whether there is anything within my expertise, control, or influence that can or should be done about it.

(If you take anything from this comment, I think it should be to go listen to Neil Gaiman talk about anything!)

If I go on a work forum and describe my bad behaviour, behaviour that is harmful to others, and advocate for others to do it, I'm going to get in trouble, and possibly fired.

If I publicly discuss private work information, I'll definitely get fired.

If I mention the bad behaviour of someone at work publicly, without naming names, I might get a talking to, but probably won't be fired.

How a group reacts to those different things over time defines the norms and culture of the group.

Biggar violated the all time favourite in-group rule: Don't talk out of school. Don't talk about fight club. Don't snitch.

The other founders violated a norm against pushing yourself ahead and taking advantage of others that doesn't even seem to hold in many groups, especially upper class/wealthy ones.

It's a common way to make bad mistakes though.

At the time the iPhone hadn’t been invented yet, multi-touch was a cutting edge innovation, Support Vector Machines were state of the art ML, and the CAP theorem was only a few years old.

Some changes I pick up through reading and work projects, but not everything.

Since I can’t run diff(2005 CS, 2020 CS) I ask here.

What fundamentals have changed, or are new, in CS in the last 15 years?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23674720

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Changing in the future costs something.

Designing for future changes up front makes sense if cost(future change) > cost(future proofing)

SAAS? Do virtually no future proofing.

IOT, do some.

Space probe? Do lots.

Also, if you haven't built quite a few relatively similar systems, don't do future proofing without talking to people who have.

Having your work cancelled and thrown away is one of the most disheartening things as a developer.

It has to be back of mind for them when they are building. When it gets released they get to come see all the comments better on how long until Google kills it, and the people who won’t try it because of that risk.

The yaletown office has maybe 60 or 70 engineers? The other location is larger I believe (and has a better view), but don't hold that against us!

As a beginning programmer I had to consciously think about fundamental concepts all the time, or grapple with my limited knowledge of a programming language, instead of thinking about the problem.

As an experienced programmer I think in higher level concepts and abstractions, and the fine code details happen without me consciously thinking about them particularly.

This actually makes learning a new programming language or IDE more painful now than it was when I was new. It probably takes me less time to get to an equal level of skill in language X than a beginner, but getting to the level of fluency where the low level details don't require conscious thought takes time and practice. Being slowed down so much while getting to that point is deeply frustrating.

It now has 413 stations and is the largest subways system by length (676 km) in the world.

In the end what kept me from renting it is the likelihood of needing to move in a year or so. I prefer a bit more stability for my kids.

I toured a few of these in the last couple months and the nice ones had a parade of high income couples going through who would be perfectly happy to rent a $6,000,000 house for $5000 per month.

All the ones I saw explicitly disallowed subletting/group tenancies in the rental agreements.