It's discrimination because Blockchain tech is part of my religious beliefs... Why is it so that less intelligent people who believe that there is a man in the sky watching over them have protection against discrimination but I don't? Yet my beliefs are grounded in science and an actual understanding of our socio-economic system. I deserve more protection, not less!
Does the law require that one's beliefs be irrational in order to benefit from discrimination protections?
I would retroactively make that quote gender neutral but they're really not afraid of their husbands.
Financial institutions feel like blockchains don’t have a clear chronology of KYC/AML, they dont care about KYC/AML they care about violating it for their relationship with the regulator.
Smaller institutions take risks with a niche, and gun for exceptions with the regulators that bigger institutions dont find worthwhile to bother with
And the biggest institutions dgaf because their relationship with the national government will never be broken
What are your religious beliefs? I'm intrigued to hear more.
I essentially believe that the economy is fake. That people get money due to mostly social factors and then make up plausible narratives to explain their success in a way which omits all the critical social elements... And these explanations sound plausible to people in their social circle who are at a similar distance from a money printer so the false beliefs and perceptive distortions are socially validated.
I also believe I'm being persecuted and algorithms are suppressing me for seeing through the scheme and for my ability to explain complex issues simply.
I think it probably wouldn’t be as weird if the project were a meaningfully different fork of it, but it sounds like it’s trying to accomplish the same goals as the open source project which I feel should probably be ported back? and renaming it seems sorta ungrateful? Kinda like that “you made this? I made this” meme. Maybe I just don’t have an understanding of how different the projects are though…
What? Who cares about the license agreement? Lawyers and bureaucrats maybe. The real issue with _any_ software project is whether it is meant to be a step toward a more livable and peaceful world or not. Sure, some people make guided missile software to murder people for profit, but that's just obviously antisocial behavior, regardless of how well it complies with license agreements.
Personally, I have no issue with them making their own internal fork, but then blogging about their thing without contributing it back leaves a little bad taste. If it’s so good, then contribute it back, since they benefited from the volunteers.
The article isn't really talking about changes they made to goose, it's describing how they went about integrating goose with the rest of their developer infrastructure (ie. the AWS-based remote devbox system, Toolshed, etc).
> We’ve customized the orchestration flow in an opinionated way to interleave agent loops and deterministic code
Is goose in such disrepair that you can just drop code changes into it and the smol developer auto-accepts it, happy that anyone is doing the work?
Or is goose actually it's own project with 250 issues and 74 PRs and might have its own ideas about how it's built?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs
Was this video part of the training set?
Why does this sound so insufferable?
The whole thing is meant to play on your emotions, not convince your mind.
This really puts the final nail in the coffin that was the legend that Slack developers trigger a minion from their phone during their commute.
It's also funny that they mention they used goose [1] as a starting point. I discovered them at a conference, and quickly realized that nobody was using that crap, to the point that literally every testimony on their website is from their own team.
Smartphones have terrible camera ergonomics, yet they killed the compact dedicated camera.
But humans are still left to review the code in the end, and as a developer, code reviewing is one of my least favourite things..
I'm not sure I could spend the rest of my career just reviewing code, and never writing it. And I'm not sure my team would either. They would go insane.
As developers, by nature, we are creative. We like to solve problems. Thats why we do what we do each day. We get a thrill when we solve the problem, test it and it actually works. When we see it in production and users enjoying it. When we see the CPU usage go from 99% to 5%.
I fear we are soon becoming nothing more than the last validation step between AI and reality. And once AI becomes reality, which is very soon, the days of development as we knew it will be over.
I only speak for me but when I review code I need to dig into my own experience writing and and remember what works and what doesn’t that I’ve internalized over years of writing and manually debugging code. Take that out of the equation and I wouldn’t be good at reviewing code for long.
I used to write a lot of C++ back in the day, and I can still read it and understand it for the most part but I would never be able to effectively review anything non-trivial. I just don’t have enough recent experience writing it myself to have internalized all of the obscure pitfalls and gotchas. And just vommitting out some C++ from a bot and just having it redo things until it has the appearance of working correctly isn’t gonna help me with that.
“My job now is just reviewing code” is such an extremey short-sighted view I’m terrified for the future where nobody understands anything anymore. I’m sure OpenAI and Anthropic would love this though.
And yeah, reviewing code is one of the more tedious and unfun parts of the job why would I want this?
One of the most annoying parts of my job is my supervisor who used to be a dev but became a manager years ago. He doesn’t really understand the codebase enough anymore and I spend so much explaining basic things to him now it actually hinders our productivity when he wants to “contribute”. And let me just say that getting a Claude sub for the whole team hasn’t helped this at all.
And one last thing - every single engineer I know that needs to maintain a Stripe integration hates them with the power of a million suns.
This usually results in A: creating commits where tons of code is being constantly added and removed, B: due to Claude's somewhat cavalier attitude to existing code, has steadily eroded my familiarity with the code base.
I'm still not convinced that these longer loops are that beneficial, compared to 1min prompts to 5-10min AI work.
And also a project to pad someone's resume.
I pity the senior engineer, demoted from a helmsman into a human breakwater, tasked to stand steady against an ever-swelling sea of AI slop.
> I pity the senior engineer, demoted from a helmsman into a human breakwater, tasked to stand steady against an ever-swelling sea of AI slop.
I'm skeptical that the human-in-the-loop, whose only task is to read code, is going to be able to review at the rate that the AI can produce.
It's Undefined Behaviour, now in every language.
The Leverage team kind of sounds like the Department of Government Efficiency
It's like measuring productivity by how many people you pull into meetings each week. The CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual literally recommends holding as many meetings as possible with as many people as possible. The CIA should add "open as many PRs with AI as possible" to their list. Bonus sabotage points if the PRs are made from ambiguous "one-shot" attempts described in Slack with no follow up clarification.
embedding-shape•2h ago
Once with substantial discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47086557 (127 points | 2 days ago | 65 comments)