Were any of those using JS/TS? I've seen Bazel perform wonders with many compiled languages, but I'm not impressed with the JS ecosystem.

Nothing substantial, no. I've never personally experienced builds to be so slow to begin investigating bazel as an option for JS/TS.

Tsgo, oxlint, caching dependencies etc. what linear outlined in their blog post would be more impactful for the average TS project I've worked on.

No they didn’t. Did you read either of the things you posted?

Someone answered the question with some actual examples. Please refrain from the hyperbole

And those examples were not cases where companies went back to manual work after using AI. They were examples of companies regretting laying off their experts.

The point GP is making, which I understand seems dismissive, is that AI is a tool that people are not retreating from, because it offers the same sorts of gains as previous tool improvements we've seen in the field: from compilers to IDEs to sites like Stack Overflow. I think adding AI to that group of improvements makes a ton of sense, as it has the capacity to provide similar gains in productivity.

Exactly. It's quite scary that some people are reacting viciously to this type of question. There's real insecurity here...

LLM use breeds insecurity, as well it should.

Those things don't hallucinate. (Of course, stackoverflow can be wrong but at least its peer reviewed)

The best part of the downvoting of this is the answer to all of these is yes. Companies have banned all of these in the past when they were coming up. If you don’t learn from the past, …

It makes sense at a company that sells AI as a service. Perhaps to make presentations...

The ones with terrible slides on their MTA ads?

None of those are French words. How many letters is the word you say is French?

Four

Have you considered what happens in the presence of multiple threads? I know aarch is weakly memory ordered but the assembly output by those two versions is quite different when multiple threads are involved. There must be a reason spreading the mutations across multiple lines causes the compiler to pessimize to the branch version.

Edit: not saying they are different just that it is harder for the compiler to see the safety of the transform when they are quite different.

The compiler doesn’t have to consider how other threads will see this. If you don’t use atomics, the compiler is free to reorder things however it wishes as long as the single threaded behavior is the same in the end.

I used to do phone screens with a similarly simple question. I am still blown away that something like 60% would fail to write working code. I had more parts for the 40% that got it the first one, but it was crazy how many people couldn't do the most trivial task.

That success rate aligns with mine. I was also shocked, at first.

Because hypertrophy is generally pointless compared to strength. The hyperthrophy that naturally accompanies strength work is sufficient but the strength that accompanies hypertrophy work is far less beneficial.

one of the best proxy we've for Hypertrophy is getting progressively stronger in medium rep range. (8-12)

The title says they are focused on improving body composition which is boosting lean mass, lowering of fat mass which kinda seems achieved best by focusing on Hypertrophy and fat loss?

> something is valuable because some people think other people will pay more for it in the future, and not because it does useful things

This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.

It used to be only a few steps removed from actual value. Like an empty lot is worth an amount because when you plant trees it's worth an amount because when it has fully grown trees it's worth an amount because when you cut down the trees the timber is worth an amount. That's an acceptable function of finance, it allocates the value of a logging plantation between several different people who may own it at different times, so that one doesn't have to hold it for the full 20-year growth cycle to realize any value from it.

We needed to develop long-term value instruments to incentivize long-term planning. Bonds are necessary for large public projects, for instance. There are many complexities in deriving instruments from that basic concept. What makes you think a particular one shouldn't be acceptable and why?

There used to be much more of a belief that the reason this stuff has an appreciable value to speak of is because it's either creating a channel for society's productivity or it's creating a position to skim pennies off of society's productivity. But less and less does it feel like productivity is even in the equation anymore. What the quoted statement describes is much closer to a Ponzi scheme than what finance is actually supposed to be about, but it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

Also if the cutoff point for raising concerns about this was hundreds of years ago that really sucks for everyone alive today.

Is there a particular instrument or transaction you feel creates a scheme? What specifically would you disallow, and what would be the downstream impact you imagine of doing so?

It's like I said, the degree to which productivity is in the equation.

Money just looping around until settling on a few people, otherwise doing nothing else = zero productivity, zero value

Action which results in a bit of productivity = a bit of value

Action with results in lots of productivity = lots of value

I'd say the exact degree of separation where it becomes "a problem" is roughly equal to the exact number of sand grains that form a pile. I can tell you one area where society is already suffering greatly from dead economy and that's the housing market. The downstream impact of that industry not being realistic is happening right now.

Also I would like to refer people to a story called "The Golden Goose." Everyone seems familiar with it but it doesn't seem like most people have seen the end.

Every derivative of productivity is measuring future productivity. What specific product were you thinking didn't?

Finance has always run on both: an asset that produces something has a floor. An asset that produces nothing does not. Between the two lies human nature. One way to get rich is to focus on fundamentals. One way to get rich or poor faster is to bet on human nature.

I mean I think hating practices and efforts to exploit people is good. I think hating the adverse consequences of our inventive structures and lack of protections for basic human rights is good. But I think hating AI is pointing at the wrong subject for scorn. If you want positive change you can’t point at something that a lot of people are getting value out of (individuals as well as corporations) and say fuck your experience. It is also wrong for a billionaire to say fuck your future and deal with it, but that should mean hating on that person not the technology.