I interpreted it as meaning that optimism is an assumption that problems will go away so there’s no need to painfully face them, whereas pessimism is an assumption that things will get worse unless you actively search out problems and fix them.
ah yeah, I mean if that's the case, I think that's orthogonal, right?
In my interpretation of the words, I tend to think of optimism as being the brave thing because having hope is more difficult, and IME, you can only muster energy to solve a problem if hope exists. Conversely, pessimism to me feels cheap and easy, and if you say "everything's fucked, what's the point" then nothing gets solved
So, it's probably more of a quadrant/compass along the axes of optimism/pessimism and proactive/passive
I am consistently surprised that I'm unique for enjoying, and if I may be so bold, being pretty good at, both Ops and appdev. Now I'm not the greatest in the world, but I really do firmly believe now that most generalists should strive to be able to do both at a journeyman level.
To my understanding, this _is_ DevOps in the original sense of the word, and the version where they are a separate team is an offshoot bastardization.
At my last job, it was somewhere in-between where we had DevOps specialists who were regular software engineers who allocated the bulk of their time to building / running infra via Real Code (Pulumi vs. TF, minimal YAML wrangling etc) and built paths for app devs to self-service as much as they could. That, I felt, was a really excellent setup.
> loaded into the working model — the original file is untouched and will stay that way
Commentary text like this, once described here on HN as essentially the chat context leaking into the application, is absolute anathema to me. Something about it makes me irrationally annoyed and immediately not want to use the software.
I think, to me, it signals the pinnacle of vibe-coding in the sense that I can't imagine that the output was looked at closely and the copy still remained. When my own agents try to write stuff like that, I remove it immediately.
I wonder if this is caused by so much of the training data is the web, where millions of articles were written to hit some word count. It's just following what it was trained on.
It’s very annoying. Claude specifically will tend to treat minor clarifying details in a prompt as major features.
I’ve also noticed it likes to spam a UI with explanatory text for every control. Almost like it wants to do tooltips, but doesn’t understand the exact UI for them.
sigh No, it doesn't have consciousness, nor have human thoughts, etc. We (humans) are just _really_ good at anthromorphizing and pattern-matching. We do it to our animals, assigning human feelings to their expressions, and so of course we'll do it to the tool that outputs in our language.
Not to mention, software is a fundamentally collaborative process. We build it better by working together to build coherence, and we are capable of doing that over very long periods of time. Agents do not appear to be (the hugging face incident is not IMO an example of building coherence, hacking is about exploiting decoherence/bugs, not the same thing)
Speaking as a member of Gen-Z (26) I can confirm that most of my anxiety is not from my hippy parenting, but from an increasingly chaotic world (I mean this in the sense of information overload, not ratio of peaceful times to war time) and dwindling economic opportunity.
I do think that millenial-style parenting has many flaws and is guilty of messing of kids in novel ways, but it's dishonest to say that it's more guilty than social media, stagnating wages, etc.
The world has always been chaotic. I would wager that most people are better off now than they were before. There is something new in that we are straddling young people with massive amounts of student debt for a college degree that was overpriced and oversold on its benefits.
I agree with what you last said, it's not necessarily entirely hippy parenting, but it does seem like hippy parenting at best did not prepare people for the real world or hasn't had a material improvement. Maybe each previous generation laments of the next generation's parenting style.
Your first point is what I was trying to convey in my parentheses, which is that the world is more peaceful than ever before and yet it feels like it's closing in on us increasingly so due to the vast amount of information thrown at us with no viable way to process it. This, paired with the ever increasing amount of things we are expected to fit in with no reasonable way to do so leads to burnout _Fast_
I've seen plenty of evidence and I could take a bunch of time to dig it up and present it to you... Or you could just take note to think critically about the content whenever someone else is paying for you to read an article instead of you paying for it yourself. (Even if it's for a source which historically had a good reputation)
Maybe I'm being chastised and down voted by real people who take offense to encouraging study and critical thinking about information that impacts financial decisions on a website with community guidelines that encourages intellectual curiosity, or maybe I'm being attacked by LLM bots in a time when it's never been cheaper or easier to do so.
Youre riding a fine line between being curious and sealioning. If you're actually curious, try asking another way.
I think you’re spot on about specialization. Police are chronically under-trained and unequipped to deal with such a broad swathe of what they’re expected to, from speeding tickets to mental health crises. As long as there’s a combination of ill training, high pressure situations, and bad pay, there’s going to be terrible outcomes.
I definitely think that there’s a ton of ways in which the American police state is a horrible shitshow that attracts power-hungry assholes, but I also think that the nature of the job as it is currently set up inevitably will lead to mistakes from cops who wouldn’t have violent behavior otherwise.
That doesn’t excuse it, of course, but it’s important to understand the circumstances that create horrible outcomes.
> the nature of the job as it is currently set up inevitably will lead to mistakes from cops who wouldn’t have violent behavior otherwise.
What if we focused available resources less on arming police with military equipment and more on better training? For example, the $80B+ that Congress gave ICE (an agency that previously had budgets closer to $10B) could be used to train officers on better community engagement, de-escalation strategies, suspect identification (to avoid relying on things like race, ethnicity, or language), and trigger discipline. It may come at the cost of having fewer MRAPs, body armor, or shock gloves[1] but could result in fewer civilian deaths.
I absolutely agree! Maybe the rest of my comment didn’t emphasize it enough, but that’s exactly where I was going with my point. The incentives and training (or lack thereof) are wholly militarized and not suitable for real community engagement.
reply