HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | keybrd-intrrpt's commentslogin

> six months of being stupid on purpose

Those are rookie numbers.

I've been doing that for 40 years


A true master of their craft. You can't see it, but I'm bowing right now.

You make it look effortless!

For sure.

Especially as organizations grow in size.

A small startup usually has little-to-no "junk" or "fat" to trim.

But as orgs grow, and since we have imperfect knowledge and communication systems, more an more "junk" or "connectivity" roles emerge.

Microsoft: 223,000 employees

Alphabet / Google: 198,933

Apple: 150,000

Oracle: 141,000

Meta / Facebook: 75,472

I tried to stay way from companies with retail or warehouse workers like Amazon and Walmart (though Apple likely has a lot of retail).

I don't see HOW companies get to that size without some "junk DNA" that keeps it operating.

Maybe in the next few years we'll have AI-powered knowledge bases and communication lanes that smooths things out, but - how do we 'quantify' what "Steve, the guy who has been there for 22 years and works as the company phonebook and knows who to refer you for the thing you need"


> removing those people disrupts the organization

Or worse, you removed the workers and left the 'telephone' people.

In my anecdotal experience, MOST companies don't take any time to understand what they are cutting.

They kill "Project X" so the easy answer is that everyone involved with Project X must go. Regardless if they were useful or could be useful elsewhere.

Or they cut by salary, employment length, etc.


Especially when school is not in session and children are not present.

How much is that likely to bias the dataset?


> the proof did not explain why

So humans do/did still have a role to play


Something as simple as the FCT may have an alternative intuitive proof that humans can relate to.

I do not think it is a given that humans or algorithms can find such a proof for any given problem.


My layman understanding of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is that you are correct. It states that there are things that are true but no proof can exist (providable by human or AI provers).

Unless the existence of the reason is also proved.

Unless AI can explain why today.

I mean, I guess we still need people for the AI to explain it to.

Right?!

It could have just been a regular black usb stick an I bet nobody would have questioned it.

Instead "why is there something in toilet paper behind the TV?"


If I saw a usb stick looking thing in a conference room, chances of me giving a f: 2%

Me seeing toilet paper next to the TV in a meeting room? I’m picking it up and asking why we have toilet paper in the meeting room, 100%


They could have just taped it to the inside bottom of a full tissue box, and as long as they got it before the tissues were mostly empty I bet it would go undetected. Put a hand sanitizer next to it for extra camo.

Even then, just put a fake bottom in and nobody would notice. Worst case they throw out your mic.

Which made me wonder: in the future a microphone/camera combo fits in a grain of sand and costs a cent so everybody can basically see everything ... curious what the world would be like, is there a black mirror episode on this yet?

Where fruit flies carry cameras around? That's scary.

Likely at some point regular people just aren't given access to such edge tech, though. Even with infinite knowledge from an LLM, you probably couldn't build it without access to a factory either.


Or hijack the TV's already always on mic. Just forward a copy of the audio to your server in addition to the one sent to Samsung or LG. WebOs and Tizen shouldn't be that hard to crack when you have access to unrestricted frontier models.

This so much. Throw it in some cabinet or put it in middle of some wires under the table... Any place where there is naturally lot of other stuff or no one never looks and if they look they don't look throughly.

> the critical part of the backend where a new 300ms delay will cost the company millions then yeah.

If it is so critical, why don't we have tests and benchmarks for it?

Oh right, because "Greg the super-coder" never wrote any of this down and it lives in his head so he can be the arbiter of change.

It was toxic before agentic coding, it's still toxic now.

Document your systems. Add tests and benchmarks for what is important.

We've always known this, we have a dozen or more textbooks written about it. But we always gave it a pass because "Greg the super-coder" was producing more value than he was hurting.

That's no longer the case. Your best coder is now Opus or Astra


Good thing you reviewed the PR so you could catch the gap in Greg’s documentation and force him to write it before approving his PR!

> If it is so critical, why don't we have tests and benchmarks for it?

Thats a fair point, but Ive seen LLMs modify the surrounding environment to “pass the test”

A human still has to be responsible at some point.


> Your best coder is now Opus or Astra

No, that's our _fastest_ coder, which is a different thing than _best_


> We shouldn't give up on line-by-line review for serious applications.

But how many changes are actually serious?

I can have an agent mass-produce security bug fixes, zip through our low-priority backlog, etc.

IMO - we need to get out of our own way.

Building is cheap now. Agents are also really good at following checklists and running tests.

So instead of having individual engineers reviewing code, we need to

* Leave human review for the most impactful changes

* Get better at defining the quality bar

* Continually codify human concerns into rules or systems that can be checked against

A lot of this was touched on a few months ago with Spec-driven development becoming a hot topic when agentic coding started.

We should continue that with spec-driven review, testing, etc.


> the most impactful changes

Quite a lot of our bugs in production have been in seemingly less impactful changes. How do you know what's impactful a priori?


> I can have an agent mass-produce security bug fixes

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that this is acceptable? Because I very much don't think it is. You'll have twice the bugs after you're done, and they'll be inhuman ones that you have little chance of catching.

> But how many changes are actually serious?

I mean, "security bug fixes" are not on your list of serious changes? What is?


Another reason:

They keep all the input and use it for training data and reinforcement.

If you're being "mean" to it, you're "spoiling" the data you "give" to them - causing them more work to filter it out later.

As with most things in business and life - just follow the money


100%

I don't mind something that requires a modifier key like Shift+click to follow a URL

But so many times now I'll click to get focus and now that's selected some option or opened some pane.

If I wanted that, I'd use the Claude Desktop app!


As a total side tangent, but I really like the following flow: focus follows mouse but focus doesn't raise the window, clicking on the top bar, or Win+Click raises it (notice how neither of these 2 results in an interaction).

Unfortunately, of the popular DE's, this is only supported in Xfce (?), and it's not supported in Windows or macOS afaik.


XMonad! Also has nice hot-keys for moving focus.

tmux has that these days and it’s great if you have a big monitor with a lot of panes, just move the mouse to focus.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: