Talk the LLM and have it explain code. Write very small examples by hand and make sure you understand how they work. Big software is just a bunch of those small things working together.
Fully self-taught, my first time ever working with someone on real-world code, I was interning for a open-source python CRM. The owner said to me, "anytime some code is difficult, just break it into smaller pieces. If it is still difficult, break it into smaller pieces."
This has stuck with me since; it is indeed applicable to many facets of life.
I think a lot of the people in positions of power in the AI industry think that AGI/superintelligence will solve the climate crisis, aging, scarcity, and many other tough problems by doing novel science. I hope they are correct.
I've lived in California for 20 years so this is my first year of non-draught. We've been enjoying the unusual prevalence of greenery in Orange County.
In the 70s and 80s there were big beautiful thunderstorms. Lightning would crash down for hours and the torrential fall rains would flood streets in north orange county (tri-city area) again and again. It rained so hard I had to take shelter under a tree when I was 8, due to how the rain and wind was threatening to knock me down. It rained for a week straight once, which was memorable. As was the times the rain ruined Halloween (more than once).
> Having no such thing as an uncommitted change seems like it would be a nightmare, but perhaps I'm just too git-oriented.
Why? What's the problem you see? The only problem I see is when you let these extra commits pollute the history reachable from any branch you care about.
Let's look at the following:
Internally, 'git stash' consists of two operations: one that makes an 'anonymous' commit of your files, and another that resets those files to whatever they were in HEAD. (That commit is anonymous in the sense that no branch points at it.)
The git libraries expose the two operations separately. And you can build something yourself that works similarly.
You can use these capabilities to build an undo/redo log in git, but without polluting any of the history you care about.
To be honest, I have no clue how Jujutsu does it. They might be using a totally different design.
The problem is git's index let's you write a bunch of unconnected code, then commit it separately. To different branches, even! This works great for stacking diffs but is terribly confusing if you don't know what you're doing.
How "to" do you want to make it? That description's totally disingenuous.
"later on" makes it sound to a human like it takes any real amount of time or that it isn't basically instant and wrapped by up porcelean, and "muck around with" implies that there's anything more random or complicated to it then writing the sha to a file in the right place in the .git directory.
…says every charlatan who wanted to keep their position. I’m not saying you’re a charlatan but you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work. Your comment about feeding on data - AI can read faster than you can by orders of magnitude. You cannot compete.
"you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work"
Based on what? Your own zero-evidence speculation? How is this anything other than arrogant punting? For sure we know that the point was something other than how fast the author reads compared to an AI, so what are we left with here?
>you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work
That’s the logical fallacy anyone is going to be pushed to as soon as judging their individual worth in an intrinsically collective endeavor will happen.
People in lowest incomes which would not be able to integrate in society without direct social funds will be seen as parasites by some which are wealthier, just like ultra rich will be considered parasites by less wealthy people.
> People in lowest incomes which would not be able to integrate in society without direct social funds will be seen as parasites by some which are wealthier, just like ultra rich will be considered parasites by less wealthy people.
Your use of the word parasite, especially in the context of TFA, reminds me of the article James Michener wrote for Reader’s Digest in 1972 recounting President Nixon’s trip to China that year. In an anecdote from the end of the trip, Michener explained that Chinese officials gave parting gifts to the American journalists and their coordinating staffs covering the presidential trip. In the case of the radio/TV journalists, those staffs included various audio and video technicians.
As Michener told it, the officials’ gifts to the technicians were unexpectedly valuable and carefully chosen; but, when the newspaper and magazine writers in the group got their official gifts, they turned out to be relatively cheap trinkets. When one writer was bold enough to complain about this apparent disparity, a translator replied that the Chinese highly valued those who held technical skills (especially in view of the radical changes then going on in China’s attempt to rebuild itself).
“So what do you think about writers?” the complainer responded.
To that, the translator said darkly, “We consider writers to be parasites.”
That's a trope easy to fall into for any human, probably.
All the more as part of the underlying representation is actually starting from a structuralist analysis. We try to clarify the situation through classes of issues. But then mid journey we see what looks like an easy ride shortcut, where mapping ontological assessment over social forces in interaction is always one step on the side away. Goat scape is nothing new.
So we quickly jump from, what social structures/forces lead to that awful results, to who can be blamed while we continue to let the underlying anthropological issue rules everyone.
reply