Yes, it is a toxic sub, where the notion that there can be greater happiness on the other side of forgiveness than cutting ties is all but absent.

To be fair, it’s easier to concisely explain cutting someone off than justifying forgiveness. And the latter will land with some people versus others, while the former will only be rejected by people who have themselves concluded a theory of forgiveness. As a result, the simpler pitch gets upvoted. Even if the majority would have been swayed by a collection of arguments the other way.

It’s a good theory. My theory is, for whatever reason, jaded, narcissistic, miserable people congregate in r/AITA and try to drag other people into their misery because that’s easier than accepting responsibility and doing something to change.

Before Reddit made hiding profiles easy you'd click on a user's unreasonably scorched earth advice to the OP, and find their post history is essentially going to every story they come across and advocating for scorched earth.

Hiding profiles has genuinely made the platform profoundly worse. It's impossible to tell if you've just got a troll on your hands or someone who's making a good faith argument. It used to be enough to check their profile, and either downvote and move on, or engage with someone on a human level.

Now everyone is a troll/bot by default unless proven otherwise.

What are the chances you were seeing the anti-civ bots and now reddit makes them easier to hide? (And I'm not saying regular people acting like bots, but an anti-civ campaign.)

Except it’s not toxic to suggest that cutting toxic relationship out yields greater happiness.

Well, maybe.

The challenge is interpreting what is toxic, correctly.

Also, if everyone I know is “toxic” then that’s a good sign that the problem is me and not everyone else.

> The challenge is interpreting what is toxic, correctly.

Correct. It is always case by case review.

> Also, if everyone I know is “toxic” then that’s a good sign that the problem is me and not everyone else.

Why “everyone”? Generalizations like these are the same mistake that Reddit, that you’re calling out, makes.

Also, toxic is relative to your perspective – it’s not a universal merit.

I agree with you on everything here up-to safety. There are lesser forms of safety than somehow averting a terminator scenario (the fear of which is a bay area rationalist fantasy which shrewd marketers have capitalized on)

You get the fitness from the exercise. They didn't subject people to exercise, they surveyed them on what they already do and found a correlation between exercise and emotional resilience.

What's more, the existence of data (therefore differentiation of what is and isn't), is theory-laden.

The 3D view is broken on Safari and Chrome.

The 3D view works on Edge, but the shirt doesn't fit properly and there's only one sleeve and that sleeve doesn't actually have the arm go in the middle of it.

It is not working on Firefox 147.0.4 either.

Instruct it to test as it goes along. Add whatever testing base command to your list of trusted tools.

There's a parenthetical offset about being high on coke for 14 hours. It's obviously a joke.

> there is a smaller % that benefits and learns more and faster

That's not what the study says nor it is capable of credibly making that claim. You are reasoning about individuals in an RCT where subjects did not serve as their own control. The high performers in the treatment group may have done even better had they been in the control and AI is in fact is slowing them down.

You don't know which is true because you can't know because of the study design. This is why we have statistics.

So you don't doubt their conclusion that most sucked by using AI, but you doubt that they found that some learned more?

The conclusion of the paper doesn't say that "most sucked using AI". It's says the mean quiz score was both significantly and sizably lower in the intervention group vs the control. No significant difference detected on speed.

The qualitative breakdown says how you use AI matters for understanding. It doesn't say some learned more than the control group and even if it did, it's not powered to show a statistical difference which is one of the only things keeping a study from not being another anecdote on the internet.

For the sake of argument let's say there is an individual in the treatment arm who scored higher than the highest control participant. What some want that to mean is, "Some engineers perform better using AI". It does not say that. That could be an objective fact(!), it doesn't matter. This study will not support it; it's an RCT. What if that programmer is just naturally gifted or lucky(!). This is the point of statistics.

The best you can do with outliers is say "AI usage didn't hinder some from attaining a high score" (again maybe it would have been higher w/o you just can't reason about individuals in a study like this).

I hope this helps.

Thank you for this.

But despite your best efforts to teach epolanski, they’ll never learn. Their comment history shows that they’re one of the MANY confidently incorrect tools on HN.

> I wish they had attempted to measure product management skill.

We're definitely getting better at writing specs. The issue is the labor bottleneck is competent senior engineers, not juniors, not PMs, not box-and-arrow staff engineers.

> I think AI is shifting entry level programmers to focus on expressing requirements clearly

This is what the TDD advocates were saying years ago.

The phones were prior with "play protect" certification. It's all being captured. Since we can't seem to have more virtuous companies, we need more regulation.