What do you do with this living space without a TV? Serious question from someone who grew up with a TV companion. I imagine this is what the current generation feels when thinking about smartphones.
>What do you do with this living space without a TV?
My main social space is my front porch, which is a semi-enclosed dogrun with ample seating (no TV). My "living room" doesn't have a couch, which naturally forces you towards seating (aforementioned outside). There is a small table, with two chairs only; bookshelves, artwork, and projectspace mostly for standing room only.
Not really much of a socialite, but I really don't like TVs (nor people in my small space).
>current generation feels ... about smartphones
I don't use those, either. Hate that everything is now an app (including parking).
While I sadly have to have a phone for some things (Okta, for example, for work) and in general for phone calls / texting, I try to install as few apps as possible. If there's a web interface and I don't need the info with me, I'll use the web interface.
We curl up on the couch and look at our phones. ;)
Actually we've made an effort to have people over more now, and we gather around the coffee table to chat. And even when we don't have people over, we're more likely to talk and be social.
I don't see demand dropping in the medium to long term. Businesses like to grow, and two devs with AI are better than one. And one dev with AI is better than one non-dev with AI.
The job is changing, and I don't like it in many ways, but there we go. It's not the first time new tech has nuked my dev job and I had to change.
I have personal projects that I hand-code, and personal projects I hand to Claude. Depends on how boring the project is. If it's stuff I've already solved a bunch of times, I hand it off. If I have room for good learning, I code it myself.
> Short of voting, protesting and getting into arguments with MAGA people I don't know what else I can effectively do.
Also:
Give money to organizations that are doing the work on your behalf. Lawsuits are still important.
Call or write your reps *frequently*. They use software to automatically tabulate voter positions. (And they look at it--they want to keep their jobs!)
You're getting downvoted, but people should be aware that arguments like this sometimes only reinforce the other party's position in their minds. My recommendation is also not to bother with those debates (unless you're doing it to find deficiencies in your own position).
There are elements of truth to this, but then there's other elements (here) who have said that we somehow owe it to people to argue in good faith with them when they are talking of (the ones I've personally had mentioned): post-birth abortion ("in several Democrat states, abortion is legal up to one month post birth!"), adrenochrome harvesting, etc.
That it was my/our fault such views propagate because we're not "willing to understand their perspectives".
The thing is, their perspectives are a lie. And in many cases, they know they're a lie, they just don't. fucking. care.
So they can go online and whine about being dismissed or criticized, or pat each other on the back for "knowing the truth". There's a subset who, I'm sure, see such things as actual literal truth, and that's a different issue altogether, but not sure it's my responsibility to solve, or that failure to engage on my part makes the current situation "my fault".
> It's not really a choice but a demonstration of intelligence and empathy. Still, if you deliberately decide to remain ignorant, or simply fail to understand the opposition's position even despite your best efforts, it shouldn't surprise you when you also fail to convince people your position is the correct one.
Like huh? It is okay for them to be objectively dishonest, and have zero shred of empathy, curiosity for my position, but refusing to engage on a good faith basis is a failing of mine?
> Once you reach this stage, your commentary pretty much just becomes elaborate whining, which makes a poor impression of yourself and actually pushes people away from your position.
This is literally Idiocracy in the making.
If I make a poor impression on people by repeatedly shutting down their horseshit about doctors performing "abortions" up to a week or a month after birth, or that babies are being harvested in the basement of a pizza parlor for their adrenachrome, and you're more concerned about how I should be "understanding" of that perspective, again, you're also supporting the idiocracy.
But we also at HN have historically called your experience "anecdata" and take it with a grain of salt. Don't take offense. Provide more data.
I humbly suggest that a more hacker response would be, "That's really interesting that my experience doesn't agree with that study. Let's figure out what's going on."
From my naive standpoint, LLMs like this seem to have some big strengths. One: possession of a superhuman expanse of knowledge. Two: making connections. Three: tireless trial and error.
If you put those three things together, you end up with some cool stuff from time to time. Perhaps the proof of P!=NP is tied to an obscure connection that humans don't easily see due to individual lack of knowledge or predisposition of bias.
Unless my understanding is incorrect about how these tools work that last point isn't really a quality of LLMs as such? It gets attributed because the lines are blurred but the tireless trial and error is actually just a quality of a regular programatic loop (agent/orchestrator) that happens to be doing the trickiest part of its work via an LLM.
Three: tireless trial and error.
Cannot agree more.
I figured this probably be the biggest advantage of LLM considering for other variables humans hold the same-level competency.
Yeah, this is a dictator's dream scenario and hell for the citizens. Not only do you not want to get caught for saying something that The Great Leader disapproves of, but you're terrified that anything you say might get flagged by an AI.
>If you put [possession of a superhuman expanse of knowledge, making connections, tireless trial and error] together, you end up with some cool stuff from time to time.
>One: possession of a superhuman expanse of knowledge. Two: making connections. Three: tireless trial and error.
One and three I believe are correct. The second point, making connections, is something LLMs seem to be incapable of truly doing unless the connection is already known and in its training data.
I agree partially, but I think there might be a ton of connections in the training data that aren't obvious to humans. And being a word prediction engine is all about making those connections.
This a very is a poor analogy that you have here.
reply