I hate that. It will also leave code comments explaining what it didn't do or what the code used to do and why it doesn't do that thing anymore. I don't have a huge global CLAUDE.md, but probably half of it is instructing it on how not to write irrelevant and verbose code comments.
Nah, it's just the standard enshitification playbook. It'll start out nice, open, useful, fun; then once they have enough users and the network effect kicks in, they'll lock it down and turn it into a weapon against its users. Happens every time.
So you're saying that the current management of Twitter does not favor politically-right messaging? Otherwise, your message is a non-sequitur.
The comment you replied to made no statement about the effectiveness of the project. It's like saying that George Soros is engaged in trying to elect left-wing leadership; nobody denies that.
I'm saying the right wing push and it's attractiveness doesn't come from the top down.
Media is a bottom up industry, successful media is the media people want to consume. If right wing media is popular, it's because right wing messages are popular.
Acting like the media are the tastemakers is a convenient way for people to avoid looking in the mirror and doing any kind of self reflection.
The right wing is making a push in Europe because Elon Musk has a trillion dollars, not because the parties in power have done anything wrong. Their ideas are only unpopular because the bad man is lying to them. If it wasn't for all this fake news, everyone would see that I am obviously correct and we'd have 100% support.
X and it's right wing lean isn't the problem. People are attracted to right wing politics because they don't like what they currently have. The problems isn't that an alternative exists, the problem is the people don't like them.
I always cringed at that framing anyway, for two reasons. First, it was obvious to me that it was a private, centralized, closed-source, piece of software whose owner(s) could always manipulate or take away from people they didn't like. Second, it's genuinely depressing to think that the modern marketplace of ideas was supposed to take place in 180 (or whatever the hell it is now) characters or fewer. Yeah, sure- let's hash out the complexities and nuances of life and society in single-sentence messages. And we wonder why everything has become "polarized" and rage-bait-y. When all you have room to write is "This thing is bad", what the hell else are you supposed to do?
What a stupid platform. I can't believe it's still so popular.
Why wouldn't a bank sell debit data just the same as credit data? For that matter, I would expect them to be selling everything they can: credit, debit, written checks, ACH transfers, etc.
What incentive is there for them to not do that? Laws? I'm asking sincerely, not rhetorically.
The comment you replied to doesn't imply the users are immoral, but the creators. They're saying that we shouldn't build such systems. I, personally, also believe we should resist using them as much as possible, instead of rewarding them by using them. But, obviously, that may be easier or harder for any given individual situation. So be it; just avoid as much as you can tolerate if you agree that these things shouldn't exist the way they are.
Good explanation. Just one correction: John Thune is the Senate majority leader (so, the "head" of the Senate). Steve Scalise is in the House and he's the head of the Republican party in the House, whereas Mike Johnson (who is also a Republican) is the House majority leader (so the head of the whole House, not just his party).
So, it's Mike Johnson for the House and John Thune for the Senate.
Unfortunately, yes. It's a backward looking metric, like how economists can only call a recession/depression after it's been X months of bad metrics, even if everyone living in the first month of one feels the economy going poorly. We'll only know if these tools are "boring but work" at some point in the future.
The hope is always that "this time will be different". Maybe these tools are so awesome that they'll become a de facto standard and, therefore, "boring". It's JavaScript, so I'm not holding my breath, though.
That's not a charitable reading of their comment. Granted, I also don't think articulated their point very well with that example. I can't speak for the commenter, and I'm genuinely not sure about the point they were attempting to make. But, I think the point was more so that things are moving so fast in the field that it's basically impossible to become the level of expert that has a truly deep understanding of all the parts and layers.
If you're an expert as a particular programming language, for example, you may have a good mental model for what optimizations the compiler and/or runtime are able to do, and the way you write code in that language may be influenced by that deep knowledge. You may have written so much code in that language that you know all of the corner cases and foot-guns, and how to deal with them--or better yet, how to avoid them in the first place. You may even develop new/uncommon patterns or idioms that other people end up adopting.
But, if that programming language totally changes its own semantics and compiler toolchain every few months, nobody would have time to build deep intuition and expertise like that.
reply