That’s funny, my experience has been the exact opposite.
Claude Code has single-handedly 2-3x my coding productivity. I haven’t even used Claude 4 yet so I’m pretty excited to try it out.
But even trusty ol 3.7 is easily helping me out out 2-3x the amount of code I was before. And before anyone asks, yes it’s all peer-reviewed and I read every single line.
It’s been an absolute game changer.
Also to your point about most engineering being thinking: I can test 4-5 ideas in the time it took me to test a single idea in the last. And once you find the right idea, it 100% codes faster than you do.
The has been my experience as well. AI has made me a much more prolific problem solver because I can try so many more things in such a short amount of time, learning from all of it.
Granted, I refuse to take AI solutions and just plug them blindly without looking at them. I never use “YOLO”-mode. I’m always questioning and thinking about the code it outputs, the same way I’d critique a jr dev’s pull request.
People always talk about this “I can run a 20 year .exe file” situation but when I tell you that I have never, in 30+ years, EVER had a need to run a 20+ year executable, it just makes me go… yeah, and?
Sure I believe backwards compatibility is a nice to have feature, but I have never, nor do I think I will ever, have a need to run 20-year-old software.
My experience is that a 20 year old exe file has a greater chance of running in wine than it would in windows, and a 20 year old Linux executable is going to fail because the shared libraries it depends on are unobtainable
20-year-old exe files can fail on both Windows and WINE if they touch something relatively obscure. It's easier to throw files at the problem under WINE though (you can just throw away the prefix if you break something). The single biggest mistake WINE makes is defaulting to a single shared prefix (and the second sin is similar - trying to integrate folders and menus naively).
20-year-old dynamic binaries on Linux can almost always work today; snapshot.debian.org has all the old libraries you'll ever need. The potential exception is if they touch something hardware-ish or that needs exclusive access, but this is still better than the situation on Windows.
20-year-old static binaries on Linux will fail surprisingly often, since there have been changes in filesystem and file layout.
The point still stands? Why do people make these repetitive points. Yeah, I read the parent of my own comment. There is no reason for you to boorishly restate it.
It wasn’t clear from the article: how do you naturally recover from a spinal cord injury? I’m assuming we can’t be talking about a fully severed spinal cord.
Is it common to recover from a spinal cord injury that leads to some sort of paralysis?
I witnessed someone paralyzed from cervical radiculopathy in the neck caused by youthful horseplay. Full recovery within a month. Scared us all when he went limp.
Nerves do regrow, but not from the spinal cord as I understand it, and just because they regrow does not mean they regrow along the path which is needed to repair function.
My father broke his Bricial Plexis (the nerves running through your shoulder to your arm). There was an 18 hour surgery to re-trace the path for the nerves to grow. Some nerves made a connection, and he has minimal movement in his fingers. However, most of his arm is still paralyzed.
Watermarking and synthesizing text for hosts and clients, private RAG over Slack MCP implementations would disperse LLM's to Local Data Souce: A, B, and remote server C.
The EU knows exactly how the administration feels about them with regards to military support. The Signal thread makes all involved look extremely incompetent. I’m not seeing the advantage if this was planned.
I disagree. When you leak to the press, you often do it with a planted source who "leaks" to a journalist on condition of anonymity. Doing it with an "accidental" group chat add like this signals incompetence without any added value.
If you haven’t found compelling evidence, then you haven’t looked. I’m not being snarky. Look up a list of atheists who set out to disprove God. Once you start looking, it’s impossible to miss.
What most people seem to mean by this is, “If God himself came down in a column of fire, then I’d believe.”
Most folks can’t be bothered to actually dig into the real, ample evidence that exists. You like philosophical arguments? There’s philosophical arguments for it. You like astronomical or geologic arguments? There’s that too. Logic? Check.
There’s so much evidence for Christ, it’s basically the only logically consistent worldview. I know I’ll get downvoted to hell for saying that (heh) but it’s true. There is not another logically consistent worldview beyond Christianity.
First off, you can't claim that Christianity is logical consistent until you find a way to resolve the Epicurean Paradox[0] and the question of how Sin/imperfection was introduced into our reality. If the Christian God was the only being who existed in beginning of time & everything that God created was also perfect, then which perfect being took the first imperfect action and how is it even possible for a perfect being to do something imperfectly?
Secondly, I'd like to know what you think is not logically consistent with atheism/evolution.
The Epicurean Paradox doesn't exist in the Christian worldview.
Free Will as described in the Bible fully explains why and how a good, omnipotent God could allow evil. Perfect beings making imperfect choices isn't a contradiction, it's the very essence of free will. God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience. Natural evils entered as consequences of this freedom exercised poorly, not as part of the original design.
Christianity doesn't just acknowledge this tension - it provides the complete framework to understand it: creation, fall, and redemption.
I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen. So while our minds may not like the fact that God knew it would happen, it doesn’t mean he caused it to happen.
You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
By the way, a sincere thank you for engaging instead of downvoting out of disagreement. We need more of that!
> Perfect beings making imperfect choices isn't a contradiction, it's the very essence of free will.
Either perfect beings, including God, are capable of imperfect actions/decisions on some random whim, or they are not.
If they are, then the definition of perfection is meaningless.
If they are not, then God's creations were imperfect, which suggests that God also is imperfect.
> I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen.
You're implying that an entity that has perfect foresight of the consequences of its actions is not responsible for those consequences.
I disagree.
> God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience.
Robotic obedience is the only theoretical option for a relationship with a timeless entity who created the universe.
If God knows the outcomes of all universal starting conditions, then no outcome is less pre-determined than any other outcome.
> You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
Actually, I'm child-free because I don't think that the additional joy & wonder I might gain from raising a child would be worth the pain that they may experience or cause.
I am not an atheist because that's my identity or belief, it's just the absence of belief. There are countless Gods amongst many religions -- do you believe in them? No? Well, then I simply believe in one less God than you do.
In the US, more people believe in angels than in evolution. I'd wager that the latter part is due to the former. I'm not a scientist but the theory of evolution is very simple and there's ample real world evidence to back it up. Where are all the angels these days?
reply