Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550921

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

If something has compiled some great selects for me, I only have material based on what is said. But I don't know how it is said - which to me is everything. Yes, this goes for podcasts too. What I make just won't be as good as if I'd have taken the time to go through everything.

I even notice this with things like NBA highlights. It's clear the editor (or bot) never watched the game. There were moments in it that are interesting and significant. Even small incidents that are actually clutch to the outcome of the match. But it is clear they've quickly compiled all of the goals and bashed out something mediocre which does not tell the story.

I think your mistake is to assume editing is like painting, where you can just make something brilliant with a few colours and a canvas. But editing is much more analogous to writing a book. If you have read extensively on Ancient Rome and spent time comprehending the subject, you will create something far more interesting than essentially remixing a few primer books and articles that have suggested to you by an LLM.

People have indeed "been creating amazing things with nothing" in the expressive arts, but that approach falls short when the value comes from communicating depth from narrative information.

Editing is a craft. You have to watch everything, otherwise you don't know what you have.

A machine organising stringouts and selects can work for interviews, but not for action. But even then it is only parsing your media for semantic intent. It misses the way things are said, which often imparts a different meaning.

You can use AI features for editing. But it is unlikely you will be making anything very intetesting.

Industry-standard NLE's like Premiere or Avid are probably the closest to Resolve. But even those are legacy programs that rest on their moats, whereas Resolve takes far more chances and does far less dumb shit than Adobe and Avid.

The seamless integration with industry-standard grading software is also... um mindblowing. Premiere has Lumetri and FCP has it'd colour correction tab, both of which are like MS Paint compared to Resolve's colour capabilities.

It's also free. The paid version unlocks mostly things to do with grading.

I believe this may be because processes and context-related code that was previously considered with basic design principles and functionality seem not so much to be missing, but they have they seem to be simulated. Giving the impression of being considered, which is quite difficult for a project manager to catch.

So I'm now spending a lot more time now going back and designing this 'undesigned' work. Rebuilding things manually that was abstracted past or missed entirley, which people at the project management level think "won't take you that long". Which I attribute to this insidious problem of things looking like they were designed.

How is this meant to work when deployed at scale? When there is so much technical debt generated by AI, do the efficiency gains actually start to be losses?

I'm not sure how agentic workflows can actually solve this. It seems as if you can have agents doing stuff, but they're still going to get a lot wrong and you'll need to drop someone in and rebuild.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48199169

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Talk of the chaos and stupidity of Trump just obfuscates this grim political reality. Ie, focusing the narrative on political and operational incompetency misdirects the citizenry from the fact that money from their labor that could go to healthcare, education, and building community is diverted to an aggressive foreign entity.

The chaos and stupidity narrative only mask and sustain the far grimmer reality of this operation.

I'm not arguing that this is a good solution. But our user experience is being increasingly disrupted by squinting at comments and trying to parse their syntactic and semantic structure to discern if this account is a person or not. That is not what this place should be, and I think that is something we all agree on.

A new account ban sounds rash and I agree that this could be a really dumb idea. I'm also certain dang et al will have considered it amongst other approaches. But this place is becoming less compelling by the day, and at least this measure plugs the holes until there is a strategy in place to address the issue of bots and agents being able to create accounts and spam and shill the ever-living fuck out of this once great site.

Why even is there an urgency for new users? Especially given that many now are guaranteed to be undetectable bots, which goes against the ethos of the site. What is the argument against pausing new accounts, when this community is already fairly large and active?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47620412

Points: 11

# Comments: 18

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47070660

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

There's an enormous thematic subtext of surveillance state and paranoia running in the background of The Conversation that is "informationally dense", but if you've grown up mainlining Coco Melon and Tiktok shorts, that "information" is not available to you because you have poorly developed critical faculties.

Why is this a problem? I don't mean to be confrontational here, but by this I mean: is it about them being "crazy", or us not being able to hold complexity and ambiguity? Politics has to emerge somewhere, and it's not like we have third spaces for these rants in our modern world (save for a few die-hards at your local town-hall meeting).

Also, I think cartoon politics is something that tends to emerge out of somebody's experience. Often it is armor. I think if you learn to not take them at face value, then it can really give you a quick insight (not always accurate) about what makes somebody tick.

For a few reasons I personally find that the best medicine is just to nod along with these people and watch them give away their ideological hand:

a) You know where they stand and who you are dealing with.

b) They can, however rarely, be forced to actually confront the irrational logic when sharing it.

c) I think it is the compassionate thing to do, as people just often want to spout these theories as a much needed release valve. After all, people believe this stuff often because of a confusion or frustration they have with their own lives.