Well look, the wall is already losing every point by volleying your serve so I feel like I'm on pretty strong ground here already. But give me an exact specification for your curved wall and I'll tell you how I'd beat it.
Yes. And right after we kill golf lets pave over Central Park. And we can tear down sports arenas and concert venues after that. It's a huge waste when you think about how few people actually go there and what benefit they actually have. Sports overall are a waste of time. Everyone should just walk in the woods instead. Except soccer. You're right that we need thousands more soccer fields. Its way more efficient than any other kind of exercise. And there is so much demand for soccer in the US, you can't even find an empty field. In contrast to golf courses which are mostly empty like you noticed.
you aren't countering my core point that golf courses is the possibly the worst use of space and basically anything else would serve the same or better utility for way more people.
heck keep it golf but switch to driving ranges and its still like 10x more capacity for users than golf courses.
counter arguments that point out other things that are still 10x better uses of space than golf are not very compelling. a sports arena that serves 2.5m people/year is a terrible argument against a golf course that maxes out at 117k. (using sofi in LA numbers as its a similiar footprint as well 150acres)
im also not saying abolish golf, just only play it in places where the space/water use dont matter. like rural scotland. don't put golf courses in/near cities where we should use our space better.
> you aren't countering my core point that golf courses is the possibly the worst use of space and basically anything else would serve the same or better utility for way more people
My counter point was that everything we do doesn't have to be motivated by efficiency gains. Sports, golf especially, isn't trying to cram the most people possible into a small space.
By your own logic, we should replace soccer fields with kicking a ball into a net.
> Guess we’ll need even more human software engineers to fix it.
This is what we've been doing for years before LLMs. Hiring a ton of devs to spit out code, which became another's burden. It just took longer and cost more.
Major critical software has always needed thousands of engineers to maintain million line codebases. LLMs can't reason across edge case failure modes, and better yet, LLMs generate compartmentalized modules which exponentially explodes the number of failure modes as LLM based codebases grow. Read how everyone here laments about Sol or Opus or GPT6 generates 10x the required number of lines
When he's gone we can just undo it as easily as he did it. And tear down all of his other tributes to himself.
If we don't want idiots to do idiotic things we probably shouldn't make it possible/legal in the first place. But the corruption and malfeasance goes way beyond Trump so here we are.
What we actually need to do are things like ranked pairs voting, a recall election dynamic for president/congress/judges, constitutional amendment to enshrine splitting executive power into agencies with heads elected separately from the president, get rid of the electoral college, take out the supplicating trash from the Supreme Council, criminal trials and unjust enrichment clawbacks, and so on. The whole point of the names are to be stupid petty distractions, don't let yourself be distracted.
Are you sure about that? People mildly criticised Charlie Kirk after his death and lost their jobs, there's a whole outrage over renaming streets and tearing down monuments to confederates and racists. Those same people are going to be predictably upset by any attempt to undo the man's "legacy" once he kicks the bucket.
Trump is irrelevant. What really matters was done by Project 2025, that will not be undone anytime soon, that is if democrats can even gain federal power again due to election interference or whatever they will do with ICE if they lose an election again.
I think a sufficiently smart non-competent developer can still do this to great effect, but it definitely helps if someone is both a competent developer, smart, and a seasoned user of LLMs.
IMO there's a big difference between using AI to write code and using it to review your code. In the latter, you know the code well (you are the one who wrote it), and so it is much easier to understand if AI suggestions are good or hallucinations. In the former case, realizing when the AI is making mistakes is harder, because you don't have the full context anymore.
That's a fair challenge. AI review can mean many different things though. We treat it like a slightly better CppCheck, for context. TBH the way we use it doesn't really add much beyond regular static analysis tools.
Re "the hard way", I disagree. While it may seem like the hard way, in the medium and long term this is turning out to be the easy way. We have basically no technical debt, we can fix issues rapidly and (intangible I know) we can stand behind our codebase with absolute confidence.
> Turns out the gains were eroded by having to check the work and turn verbose prose into an actual note.
LLMs are great at this. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't possible to improve the actionable notes.
Most human-made doctor notes I've seen have not been comprehensive, anyway, and the doctor has had to spend a good chunk of a rushed appointment scribbling notes rather than interacting with the patient.
As explained to me, the notes are verbose and do not focus on actionable parts of the consultation. Doctors often have to add a lot of missing detail for legal reasons and if they had to tweak the output through multiple LLMs they would have even less time for their consults.
reply