> It's distracting because it's a low signal quip that asserts that your opponents have no substance behind their views beyond looking good. Just make your argument.
That is the argument.
> Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and do. If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with.
The point of the argument isn't that people don't genuinely believe these issues. Its that they participate in these views in earnest because of social conformity as opposed to a genuine understanding of, and commonly without any intention of helping resolve them. The symptom then is blindly electing leaders with no real plan (or worse) and the result is predictably poor outcomes. Its used as a battering ram in discussions; I thought it was a dog whistle too before moving out to the West coast by my god it really is everywhere here, and it really does stifle discussion. Its a real issue.
As you have just described, accusations of virtue signalling are really accusations of people acting in bad faith by another name - and doing that without evidence of bad faith is corrosive and fallacious. Hacker News even has rules against it because it is not accepted as a valid form of argument. Just because the accusations aren't being levied against someone you're directly replying to here doesn't make it any better.
If you have reason to believe these people are bad faith actors, present the evidence directly rather than trying to sneak it in with weasel words.
Professionally one trend I have noticed is an increasing number of women programmers particularly at my current company, and they are all extremely competent and hungry. It could be our target universities but articles like this suggest maybe it's simply a more general trend. I suspect the other new grads entering aren't batting an eye but to me it's an extreme and refreshing departure from when I started. Curious if others are noticing an increasing number of women programmers hired into their orgs?
I think a very nice middle ground is when you decide to remove something, to mark it as deprecated in the next major version, and remove it in the one after. Not always possible, but IIRC React does this; so I'd frequently upgrade, then start seeing deprecation warning messages (in dev); I'd then have a clear signal before upgrading to the next version. It helped that major versions did not arrive often so making this kind of change was only occasionally necessary.
A bit trickier in this case no doubt; and trade offs. Ive not minded the React updates over the years, but busting out the Go code I wrote many years ago and having it still run flawlessly is amazing too.
Because its a rapidly trending story about technology; twitter is a very popular platform and likely a substantial portion of the HN crowd is on it in some fashion. Same reason all the Musk-related changes to Twitter have appeared on HN really. New social networks picking up (real) traction is an extremely rare event and will always draw a series of stories in their wake.
Russia cant use nukes, nor can they directly attack Nato. They threaten this as a means of their propaganda because it works.
The current situation is Russia cant fully mobilize its population (hence NK). Russia is going all in to the extent it can with what it has, hoping to either break Ukraine will or sue for more favorable peace id guess. Allowing longer term weapons for Ukraine is a gamble by west that it slows Russia again (bleeding them out faster) without impacting russian support (eg raising viability of full russian mobilization). Thats my guesses anyways.
I mean i debug code other engineers wrote every single day... being good at that is part of the job. The biggest difference is i never have to deal with the LLM writing parts i don't want it to write.
For me same experience but opposite conclusion. LLM saves me time by being excellent at yak shaving, letting me focus on the things that truly need my attention.
It would be great if they were good at the hard stuff too, but if I had to pick, the basics is where i want them the most. My brain just really dislikes that stuff, and i find it challenging to stay focused and motivated on those things.
Yep, I'm building a dev tool that is based on this principle. Let me focus on the hard stuff, and offload the details to an AI in a principled manner. The current crop of AI dev tools seem to fall outside of this sweet spot: either they try to do everything, or act as a smarter code completion. Ideally I will spend more time domain modeling and less time "coding".
> LLM saves me time by being excellent at yak shaving, letting me focus on the things that truly need my attention.
But these tools often don't generate working, let alone bug-free, code. Even for simple things, you still need to review and fix it, or waste time re-prompting them. All this takes time and effort, so I wonder how much time you're actually saving in the long run.
Tolerance indeed means tolerating the intolerant as well, otherwise it's just another name for intolerance. It's clear we completely forgot that in our polarised world.
> Essentially you should be tolerant of others, unless they themselves are intolerant.
No, it's called a paradox because there is no "easy" answer to it. Also, who determines the exact line between free speech and intolerance? It is impossible to do. The reason the world is polarised today is because everybody thinks they have the simple answer to a literal ethical paradox that has none. The simple answer being: "those that share my beliefs are OK, those that don't should be canceled/demonised/hidden somewhere I don't see them." Thus creating echo chambers so people get more and more radical.
Free speech is the only half acceptable answer, which means free speech for anyone, whatever their point of view, however offensive you deem them to be. Rowan Atkinson explained it more eloquently that I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc
I partially agree with you. There is probably a fuzzy line somewhere in between, but reasonable people on either side of it should be able to discuss their disagreements without resorting to canceling each other. However, the challenge arises when dealing with those who lie to manipulate. This isn’t about differing opinions; it’s about the integrity of the discourse. Tolerating such behavior only gives credence to falsehoods, hence "paradox".
I agree free speech must be protected, whatever it is, but it doesn’t mean we should accept manipulation and deceit. The goal should be to foster genuine dialogue, not to create echo chambers or allow harmful lies to spread unchecked.
> The bill extends and establishes immigration pathways for Afghan citizens or nationals
Were R's against this part? I thought giving immigration pathways to those Afghans that fought on our side in the war had R support? I'm very fuzzy but seem to recall a Republican veteran being one of the key people advocating for it on a news segment i'd listened to.
That is the argument.
> Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and do. If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with.
The point of the argument isn't that people don't genuinely believe these issues. Its that they participate in these views in earnest because of social conformity as opposed to a genuine understanding of, and commonly without any intention of helping resolve them. The symptom then is blindly electing leaders with no real plan (or worse) and the result is predictably poor outcomes. Its used as a battering ram in discussions; I thought it was a dog whistle too before moving out to the West coast by my god it really is everywhere here, and it really does stifle discussion. Its a real issue.
reply