I agree that “RTFM” can be insensitive, and even mean. However, the place it comes from is genuine. It’s nobodies job to tell you exactly what page to look at. If you’ve dug through the docs and still can’t find your answer, make it explicit that you’ve searched the manual, and perhaps be explicit about parts you don’t quite understand.
The whole “RTFM” thing was born from people asking for help when they obviously hadn’t made a proper try themselves first.
I was surprised to see all the nordics abstaining from voting (really, almost all of Europe). I would say that abstaining is a long-shot from voting “no”, especially if you see it as overwhelmingly likely that this will go through without your vote. Voting no is explicitly stating that you’re against the formulation, while voting yes is saying that you’re explicitly for it. Abstaining can indicate that you are (for example) for the intent, but have reservations about the specific wording. In that case, you may not want to stop the declaration from going through, but still want to signal that you have reservations and don’t want to unequivocally support it.
I didn’t mean to imply that no problems exist, they definitely do. My point was regarding the original comment that “not being afraid of the police is the norm in most developed democracies”. Despite some exceptions, I would definitely state that the norm in Norway is, by a solid margin, to not be afraid of the police. There’s also plenty of statistics that back me up on that.
Checking in from Norway. Can confirm that neither myself nor anyone I know has ever expressed that they’re afraid of the police, or that they have reason to be. People I know include a fair number of people with minority backgrounds, criminal records, or both, so this isn’t a statistic that comes from never interacting with the cops.
Sure, cops here can make mistakes, and sure, there are probably some people that shouldn’t be cops who are. However, by and large, it typically becomes a national media case if someone is injured by the police. Excessive use of force seems to be very uncommon, and in the few cases I’m aware of where it’s happened, the cops involved have been charged and sentenced for it.
It may seem alien to you, but when you build a well educated police force from people that actually want to help their communities, what you get is a police force that most people feel they can trust. When you follow up with clear corrections when some cop does something wrong, you end up with a system that most people feel they can trust.
Relevant link: The average Norwegian rates their trust for the police at about 7.5 / 10, which is the highest of any public institutions here (slightly above courts at 7/10, and a bit ahead of the parlament at about 6.7 / 10).
Edit: Some more details from the link above: Most European countries (Poland, Slovenia and Czechia excluded) rated their trust for the police above 6/10 in 2014, so this isn’t some uniquely Norwegian thing. All the European countries investigated have in common that the police are rated highest out of the public institutions.
Had something like this happen to me. Luckily, we have laws in place stating that collections companies cannot follow up disputed claims. So I emailed the collections company, with the people that sent the claim to them on CC, telling them I disputed the claim (with some attachments to back up why). They responded by basically saying “sorry, our bad, the people that sent this claim can pound sand.” Then I never heard anything more about it.
What sucks though, is that it’s really stressful to have something go to collections. Most people would probably just have paid, because they get stressed out and don’t know the law.
Full disclaimer: This law may very well not exist where you live.
Which is still utterly absurd, because it implies that a harder working dev would be spending more time chatting to a bot.
I agree with the premise of “simple but hard”. However, I still want to underscore that large areas of the ocean will at any given time be covered in clouds or fog. Sure, once you find the ship the first time, you’ve narrowed your search radius significantly, but a ship that can move at 30 knots can move around 1500 nautical miles (2800 km) without being seen under just 48 hours of cloud cover. That means any intel on the position of a ship carrying weapons that can easily strike at ranges of 500-1000 km is fresh produce. Just a day after you spotted that ship, it can have moved almost 1500 km, and if you lose track of it under clouds during your next satellite pass, it can suddenly be 3000 km from where you last spotted it.
What this means is that the “hard” element here is significant. Even the “simple” element becomes complicated by stuff like night time and cloud cover. All this taken into account, there are very few countries in the world with enough surveillance satellites and processing capacity to actually keep a pin on a ship at sea over any significant period of time.
One of the worst things about this is that the person vibe coding just ends up shitting on the reviewers time. Like… you couldn’t even bother to write a real PR, and now you want me to spend time filtering your shit? Fuck off.
It’s 3.7x more lines of code that performs 2,000 times worse than the actual SQLite.
Pretty much my experience with LLM coding agents. They’ll write a bunch of stuff, and come with all kinds of arguments about why what they’re doing is in fact optimal and perfect. If you know what you’re doing, you’ll quickly find a bunch of over-complicating things and just plain pitfalls. I’ve never been able to understand the people that claim LLMs can build entire projects (the people that say stuff like “I never write my own code anymore”), since I’ve always found it to be pretty trash at anything beyond trivial tasks.
Of course, it makes sense that it’ll elaborate endlessly about how perfect its solution is, because it’s a glorified auto-complete, and there’s plenty of training data with people explaining why “solution X is better”.
Well said, I see that I may have read your initial comment a bit too quickly and misinterpreted it a bit :)
On one level I agree with what you’re saying. On a different one I really dislike the “just do it” attitude, when we’re dealing with software that has been engineered to be extremely addictive. Of course, you could tell a heroine addict or meth-head that they need to “just decide to quit”, but it’s well established that that doesn’t usually help much. Of course, it’s true that, bottom line, they “just” need to quit. However it’s reductionist to the point of no longer being helpful to suggest that as a solution in itself.
With e.g. social media (and other addictions) we should be doing more than just putting it on the individual to cut out their addiction. After all, they’re just an individual that’s fighting a huge for-profit industry that’s set up around keeping them addicted. Asking them to fight that battle alone is setting them up to fail.
Am I the only person that’s extremely put off (and in a way intrigued) by Americans hang up with “race”. Like, even the fact that there are “official” races is very strange to me. In my country we absolutely operate with a concept of “ethnicity”, but that’s not set in stone, and is a kind of mix of “where do your ancestors come from”, “what is your phenotype”, and “what culture do you identify with”. The idea of having a “race” that is set in stone and that people actually care about is pretty absurd to me.
You can fine-grain nr. 2 even more: You can give access to e.g. modify files only in a certain sub-tree, or run only specific commands with only specific options.
A restrictive yet quite safe approach is to only permit e.g. git add, git commit, and only allow changes to files under the VC. That effectively prevents any irreversible damage, without requiring you to manually approve all the time.
You’re absolutely right. I mostly run a pretty simple local model though, so it’s not like it’s very expensive either.
Saying that it can serve the same purpose does not mean that I mean the two are equivalent in every aspect.
Just based on how you’ve responded so far it seems like you’re wilfully misinterpreting how I actually use an LLM for this purpose, especially with responses referring to LLMs causing people to commit suicide and offloading decision making or the thought process itself to an LLM.
It really seems like you’re wilfully misinterpreting what I’m writing.
That is correct. However, an LLM and a rubber duck have in common that they are inanimate objects that I can use as targets when formulating my thoughts and ideas. The LLM can also respond to things like “what part of that was unclear”, to help keep my thoughts flowing. NOTE: The point of asking an LLM “what part of that was unclear” is NOT that it has a qualified answer, but rather that it’s a completely unqualified prompt to explain a part of the process more thoroughly.
This is a very well established process: Whether you use an actual rubber duck, your dog, writing a blog post / personal memo (I do the last quite often) or explaining your problem to a friend that’s not at all in the field. The point is to have some kind of process that helps you keep your thoughts flowing and touching in on topics you might not think are crucial, thus helping you find a solution. The toddler that answers every explanation with “why?” can be ideal for this, and an LLM can emulate it quite well in a workplace environment.
Yes, absolutely, but there’s a huge span from completely removing the box to having “just” a chatbot.
For example, at my company, we’ve set up an agent that can work with certain design-files that engineers typically work with through a rather complex GUI. We’ve built a bunch of endpoints that ensures the agent can only make valid changes to the files, and that it can never delete or modify anything without approval. This saves people a bunch of time, because they can make the agent do “batch jobs” that take maybe 10 min in about 10 s. It’s not possible for this agent to mess up our database or anything like that, because all interactions it has with anything are through endpoints where we verify that files, access permissions, change logs, etc. are valid.
NO!
i^2 == -1 => i == √-1
The root is NOT the inverse of the square, and assuming it is will lead you to nonsensical conclusions and banishment to the shadow realm. I reject your imagination and substitute my own… or, I would, but I’m not really up for imagining something funny on the fly right now.