Providing spoilers was the explicitly designed purpose of the US Senate. It's not a one-sided problem - Senate spoilers are also why the Affordable Care Act didn't get repealed in 2017.
US Senator was an office initially designed to be selected by state legislatures rather than by direct popular election like the representatives. To a populist or a party boss, that might count as a spoiler to the will of the people or to the will of those in DC, or to both. But I may misinterpret GP's point.
I assume the person you're replying to is talking about the Filibuster and supermajority requirements not the direct election history. The filibuster is a senate rule not a constitutional design, so it wasn't part of the "design". Maybe they're both different ways of adding veto points to the same effect, but I think spoilers as "explicit design" is probably not how I'd describe it.
Not parent but the founders were like folks writing smart contract code, thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities (that might reduce the wealth of their class) so many of the seemingly dysfunctional elements of the system turn out to be designed deliberately to be dysfunctional. Feature not bug.
They were not thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities but rather making whatever compromises were necessary in order to form the union. It was negotiation, not planning.
I don't think I have ever seen someone on HN dismiss concerns about AI's impact on other people by saying it's good for them personally. I think you have a stereotype of a white guy with a cushy programmer job in your head, and you hear him saying this when other people of various races say other things.
I mean, just this week there was a popular post “My AI Skeptic Friends are all Nuts” that generated a ton of such discussion and dismissal. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44163063
Oh my friend, you are visiting a different hn than a lot of us. I nearly got in a flame war yesterday with a noob and had to step back because of the density, caught my self being bated by a potential troll. Their argument was exactly what you’re claiming to have not seen.
To be fair I never stereotyped them even in my mind. But the audacity and dismissal of others was very bating.
I did my best but still a very poor job of arguing and had to step away.
The order isn't about handing anything over. It says "don't delete anything until we've sorted out what you will be required to hand over later. We don't trust you enough in the mean time not to delete stuff that would later be found relevant so no deleting at all for now."
He has a reputation for making deals where people have to pay him lots of money, and he's continued to be successful in that regard. Quite a lot of people and companies are paying him bribes that would have been unthinkable 6 months ago.
Quite a lot of the good programmers I have worked with may never have needed to write assembly, but are also not at all confused or daunted by it. They are curious about their abstractions, and have a strong grasp of what is going on beneath the curtain even if they don't have to lift it all that often.
Most of the people I work with, however, just understand the framework they are writing and display very little understanding or even curiosity as to what is going on beneath the first layer of abstraction. Typically this leaves them high and dry when debugging errors.
Anecdotally I see a lot more people with a shallow expertise believing the AI hype.
The difference is that the abstraction provided by compilers is much more robust. Not perfect: sometimes programmers legitimately need to drop into assembly to do various things. But those instances have been rare for decades and to a first approximation do not exist for the vast majority of enterprise code.
If AI gets to that level we will indeed have a sea change. But I think the current models, at least as far as I've seen, leave open to question whether they'll ever get there or not.
Doesn't it? Many compilers offer all sorts of novel optimizations for operations that end up producing the same result with entirely different runtime characteristics than the source code would imply. Going further, turn on gcc fast math and your code with no undefined behavior suddenly has undefined behavior.
I'm not much of a user of LLMs for generating code myself, but this particular analogy isn't a great fit. The one redeeming quality is that compiler output is deterministic or at least repeatable, whereas LLMs have some randomness thrown in intentionally.
With that said, both can give you unexpected behavior, just in different ways.
> With that said, both can give you unexpected behavior, just in different ways.
Unexpected as in "I didn't know" is different than unexpected as in "I can't predict". GCC optimizations is in the former camp and if you care to know, you just need to do a deep dive in your CPU architecture and the gcc docs and codebase. LLMs is a true shot in the dark with a high chance miss and a slightly lower chance of friendly fire.
What is that about memorization? I just need to know where the information is so I can refer to it later when I need it (and possibly archive them if they're that important).
If you're not trying to memorize the entirety of GCC's behavior (and keeping up with its updates), then you need to check if your UB is still doing what you expect every single time you change your function. Or other functions near it. Or anything that gets linked to it.
It's effectively impossible to rely on. Checking at the time of coding, or occasionally spot checking, still leaves you at massive risk of bugs or security flaws. It falls under "I can't predict".
In C, strings are just basic arrays which themselves are just pointers. There’s no safeguards there like we have in Java, so we need to write the guardrails ourselves, because failure to do so result in errors. If you didn’t know about it, a buffer overflow may be unexpected, but you don’t need to go and memorize the entire gcc codebase to know. Just knowing the semantics is enough.
The same thing happens with optimization. They usually warns about the gotchas, and it’s easy to check if the errors will bother you or not. You dont have to do an exhaustive list of errors when the classes are neatly defined.
This comment seems to mostly be describing avoiding undefined behavior. You can learn the rules to do that, though it's very hard to completely avoid UB mistakes.
But I'm talking about code that has undefined behavior. If there is any at all, you can't reliably learn what optimizations will happen or not, what will break your code or not. And you can't check for incorrect optimization in any meaningful way, because the result can change at any point in the future for the tiniest of reasons. You can try to avoid this situation, but again it's very hard to write code that has exactly zero undefined behavior.
When you talked about doing "a deep dive in your CPU architecture and the gcc docs and codebase", that is only necessary if you do have undefined behavior and you're trying to figure out what actually happens. But it's a waste of effort here. If you don't have UB, you don't need to do that. If you do have UB it's not enough, not nearly enough. It's useful for debugging but it won't predict whether your code is safe into the future.
To put it another way, if we're looking at optimizations listing gotchas, when there's UB it's like half the optimizations in the entire compiler are annotated with "this could break badly if there's UB". You can't predict it.
I suppose you are talking about UB? I don't think that is anything like Halucination. It's just tradeoffs being made (speed vs specified instructions) with more ambiguity (UB) than one might want. fast math is basically the same idea. You should probably never turn on fast math unless you are willing to trade speed for accuracy and accept a bunch of new UB that your libraries may never have been designed for. It's not like the compiler is making up new instructions that the hardware doesn't support or claiming the behavior of an instruction is different than documented. If it ever did anything like that, it would be a bug, and would be fixed.
> or claiming the behavior of an instruction is different than documented
When talking about undefined behavior, the only documentation is a shrug emoticon. If you want a working program, arbitrary undocumented behavior is just as bad as incorrectly documented behavior.
UB is not undocumented. It is documented to not be defined. In fact any given hardware reacts deterministically in the majority of UB cases, but compilers are allowed to assume UB was not possible for the purposes of optimization.
lol are you serious? I bet compilers are less deterministic now than before what with all the CPUs and their speculative executions and who knows what else. But all that stuff is still documented and not made out of thin air randomly…
Agree. We'll get a new breed of programmer — not shitty ones — just different. And I am quite sure, at some point in their career, they'll drop down to some lower level and try to do things manually.... Or step through the code and figure out a clever way to tighten it up....
Or if I'm wrong about the last bit, maybe it never was important.
Counter-counterargument; You don't need to understand metalworking to use a hammer or nails, that's a different trade, though an important trade that someone else does need to understand in order for you to do your job.
If all of mankind lost all understanding of registers overnight, it'd still affect modern programming (eventually)
The abstraction over assembly language is solid; compilers very rarely (if at all) fail to translate high level code into the correct assembly code.
LLMs are nowhere near the level where you can have almost 100% assurance that they do what you want and expect, even with a lot of hand-holding. They are not even a leaky abstraction; they are an "abstraction" with gaping holes.
As a teen I used to play around with Core Wars, and my high school taught 8086 assembly. I think I got a decent grasp of it, enough to implement quicksort in 8086 while sitting through a very boring class, and test it in the simulator later.
I mean, probably few people ever need to use it for something serious, but that doesn't mean they don't understand it.
> Professional software developers are in the business of solving practical problems for people with code. We are not, in our day jobs, artisans. Steve Jobs was wrong: we do not need to carve the unseen feet in the sculpture. Nobody cares if the logic board traces are pleasingly routed. If anything we build endures, it won’t be because the codebase was beautiful.
I think this is my key point of disagreement. Professional software developers often don't see themselves as artisans, because Steve Jobs's unseen feet are implemented through our implicit standards of ourselves. I don't go out of my way to be a perfectionist on the job, but neither will I try to push 1000 lines of spaghetti to solve a minor problem that seems like it ought to be a simple fix.
I've worked with people in the past who don't have this instinct, and it's my experience that their productivity is quite low if not negative, even though they often perceive themselves to be 10x developers who can handle all kinds of edge cases super fast. I suspect that most AI-generated code today ends up in this niche.
I'm really not convinced that I and my CEO share a common class interest against the billionaires, and I'm not particularly interested in standing together to demand that both of us need to be paid more.
I don't know how to convince you that both of you are struggling against each other when you should be in common cause, but in my experience if the CEO thinks even more they are a temporarily embarrassed billionaire then I can see why you'd resent them. That doesn't change the facts of the matter though.
Who, precisely, do you consider to be the domestic establishment? Neither the President of the United States nor his Secretary of Defense subscribe to this narrative.
Employment-based immigration policy just isn't controversial outside of very specific bubbles. Everyone who's considered the problem seriously, left and right, realizes that the H1B system is bad a point-based system is the way to go, which is why it's been part of every immigration reform proposal for over a decade with essentially no controversy. If this were the only aspect of immigration issues, or if people felt it was important enough to pull it out of broad immigration reform, it would pass in a heartbeat.
Japan will let everyone that can get a job in (and is willing to do the immigration process for them). This seems like a perfectly fair way to do things. If you don’t have a job, and can’t find a new one in 3-6 months, you have to leave again.
Don’t understand why other countries make it harder.
Because other countries are not Japan, and if, say, the US were to pursue a similar policy, they would receive over 200 million immigrant workers and near-zero employment among the native population in the first two years
Switzerland is the same. By far the best implemented immigration policies in whole Europe, if only Germany and France egos would step down a notch, acknowledge their mistakes and take an inspiration from clearly way more successful neighbour. They have 3x more immigration than next country and it just works, long term.
EU would flourish economically and there would be no room for ultra conservative right to gain any real foothold (which is 95% just failed immigration topic just like Brexit was).
Alas, we are where we are, they slowly backpedal but its too little too late, as usually. I blame Merkel for half of EU woes, she really was a horrible leader of otherwise very powerful nation made much weaker and less resilient due to her flawed policies and lack of grokking where world is heading to.
Btw she still acknowledges nothing and keeps thinking how great she was. Also a nuclear physicist who turned off all existing nuclear plants too early so Germany has to import massive amount of electricity from coal burning plants. You can't make it up.
First, I assume you are talking about highly skilled immigration to Switzerland. Does Swiss immigration policy also apply to non-highly skilled immigration? (Leave aside refugees for this discussion.)
How does Switzerland keep local companies from hiring workers on low wages to compete against locals? How do they police it?
What do you think caused the very high numbers of refugees in other European countries? I thought they were all supposed to be refugees from war and not economic refugees. In fact I thought economic refugees were just economic migrants and not something European countries let in under refugee rules.
The big difference that's been highly relevant recently (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/un-criticises-restrict...) is the application of asylum rules to civil war. You only have a right to international asylum if you can't find refuge in your home country - but what does "can't" mean, precisely, when your country is split into multiple warring factions along hazy front lines? There's a lot of room for interpretation.
Immigration based on “I have someone willing to pay me to work” (and go through the immigration process) is essentially unlimited. Immigration based on “I’m a poor refugee, please help me” is nearly nonexistent (helps they’re an island).
Nah Japan rejects a lot of people even for work visas, also the requirements for maintaining the work visa can be extremely burdensome. You are underplaying the amount of bureaucratic hurdles that the average person will in fact face.
This nation has always taken in at least some percentage of less well off immigrants. It's against tradition to do otherwise. I don't see why we should render the second category non-existent, or why that is some inherent good that everyone should agree to be the case? Am I allowed to believe otherwise?
My understanding is that Bernie Sanders used to say that mass immigration was a "Koch brothers thing" and his tune on this has since changed to align with "progressive" ideas, but I might be mistaken.
I already know that the right-wing supports h1bs, Trump himself said so.
He recently addressed Congress and brought up the abuse of H1B such as for entry level accounting positions. The program was to meet shortages for highly skilled positions. Now its being abused to cheat new grads out of jobs and depress wages
Even in his most immigration-skeptical era (https://www.computerworld.com/article/1367869/bernie-sanders...), Sanders always acknowledged that some companies genuinely need a skilled immigration program to hire the global best and brightest. And note his line about "offshore outsourcing companies"; the issue's become even less controversial now that the balance of H1B sponsors is shifting towards large American tech companies who genuinely pay market rate.
Not sure what you're aiming to get out of this comparison. Software engineers make quite a bit more at prestigious tech companies than they do at prestigious finance firms in NYC, and prestigious finance firms in NYC extensively recruit people from outside the US. Even if you want to compare engineers in tech to bankers in finance, I'm not sure Goldman is paying all that much better than OpenAI these days.
Why do people think Goldman pays software developers so well? They do not. They pay whatever is required compared to their competition (mostly other ibanks). There is a tiny sliver (less than 5%) of the dev staff who work in front office and are called "Strats". (Some other banks have "Strats" [Morgan?] or put you into a quant team to pay you more [JPM/UBS/etc].) They make about 25-50% more money compared to vanilla software devs in the IT division.
The job of the high paid people in finance at prestigious firms is to look nice in an expensive suit. Know many people in tech with those qualifications?
I'd be good at it but I won't get hired cause I didn't go to the right boarding school.
Tech has its barriers too. Most people I've met in tech come from relatively rich families. (Families where spending $70k+/yr on college is not a major concern for multiple kids - that's not normal middle class at all even for the US)
Regarding the first sentence, it is already true for software developers. You can (and probably will) make more money at FAANG compared to global ibanks in NYC.
TACO Trump himself said he'd reveal his health care plan in two weeks, many many years ago, many many times. But then he chickened out again and again and again and again and again. So that the buk buk buk are you talking about?
Labor force participation rate has increased pretty drastically since 1950. I'd imagine due to better medicine and treatments that allow people to work when they otherwise wouldn't.
But, 62% is very high. Keep in mind that number takes into account not only the elderly and disable, but also children.
Pretty much everyone who can work is working. We don't want children to be working, that's bad. We should all be on the same page about that.
