This is a UI/UX problem, no? While the current suppliers are mostly locked in the ‘chat for everything’ mode. Guess what, we didn’t go to the moon in chat mode, we don’t drive cars via chat and cyborgs don’t play chess that way. Domain specific interfaces are the way to go (opinion).

Edit with an example: Read some interesting science news yesterday regarding man made risk of high water (Nature). Mailed the author, found the article (popular news doesn’t do attribution) and data and code was open source. Claude Fable had it running very fast and explained the things I forgot from high school. Started on localization and adding some methods from my background (econometrics, extreme value theory). All nice in the /hobby/ way. I can overlap fields in hours now. A brilliant feeling (but probably not brilliant).

What I cannot do is assess the value and novelty of the created work on my own. So I still need to have a set of geologists and econometricians / actuaries work through ‘my work’. That’s what we need tools for! We need UI/UX in this case for novel fields interacting with quality controls made easy. I currently wouldn’t dare ask the author for her time based on my slop. And I cannot critically assess what I’ve made. I only learned today that Greenlands ice attracts water, that Manila and other cities are sinking due to exhaustion of their aquafiers and that the North Sea is surge heavy and unique that way.

Am I reading you right that breaking power (that you want to regenerate in the system) >> speeding power? Obvious now I come to think of it, and still pretty nifty new thing learned if true!

In that analogy bigtech AI is currently investing in cleaner air for all of us? We _could_ breath it through their hose, but might as well breath it outside.

I stubbed my toe. I don’t feel like ice cream today.

There are a lot of things it is worrisome to feel like.

I found them worth reading for the following set of thoughts came up:

- programmers had problems with delivering quality long before LLM’s

- very much research and tools went into that, bringing us {Git, libraries, VSCode, reviews, …,} but the human factor stayed the same (and more pronounced imho than in other fields of engineering)

- LLMs democratized programming, enhancing a few, dropping the bottom to no skill programming

- the tools and practices created for the quality problems from the past turn out to be wholly incapable of maintaining quality in the present

The main problem behind this is that those delivering the QA tools of the past are central in the AI race. Old school engineering would separate these concerns.

A long and a short cancel out. So you could construe this yourselves. (Recognise that this has a long tradition on HN ;)

Besides laziness being a tradition among programmers (in a good way), that kind of complex activity is going to generate tax in a lot of jurisdictions.

If you care to explain why, I’m interested. I imagine a situation where large Sum X is in ETF but gets adapted by a few little shorts. It’s still mainly the ETF in the portfolio. (Exactly this is why in my firm some ETFs are deemed too precise, since they are thought to follow the insider knowledge as well.)

Well FWIW, all of my attempts to short have generated losses.

In highly bureaucratic companies there starts to exist a value for bureaucracy ‘per se’. This can be found in endlessly growing risk and operational policies. Actually, one is lucky if the policies don’t say much. That means that the bureaucracy is trying to stay out of the way of operations. So while bureaucracy is a way of management and staff departments to fulfill their needs, the fish are still being caught.

One step up on the ladder is that the fish aren’t being caught anymore due to regulations pertaining the hooks (disallowed) and the length of the line. The fishermen complaining are being told that the regulators are also complaining and that management has decided that complaints everywhere are the best balance.

What about expecting them to suck up their pride, work with the other lead for a comprehensive plan that includes possible WONTFIX-es?

Strategy and leadership don’t come to exist on their own. It’s middle management that has the best operational and tactical view bear none. Use that to influence decision making instead of complaining. (Yes, this is a theme in my professional life. Our middle managers don’t know their own worth. Pretty please give me Plans about what you Want to Deliver. Those are so much better than general strategies.)

This is spot on. My dad was a professor and had dozens of PhDs. The only thing differentiating them (as I remember him telling me) was the resolve to keep work as /tiny/ as possible. Who is remember for his/her PhD? Only the smallest cream of the crop. He even made good fun of worthless thesis by (then) well known professors. It’s not about your PhD.

When I did my MSc thesis he told me it was a pretty good PhD. (Before giving me a months work in corrections.) I didn’t understand back then, but I understand now. It was small, replicatable and novel (still is)! Just replicate three times and be done with it. You’ve proven your mastery. Now start something serious.

> This is spot on. My dad was a professor and had dozens of PhDs. The only thing differentiating them (as I remember him telling me) was the resolve to keep work as /tiny/ as possible. Who is remember for his/her PhD? Only the smallest cream of the crop. He even made good fun of worthless thesis by (then) well known professors. It’s not about your PhD.

My professor once told me he presented at a small conference, the whole audience everybody had PhD in mathematics and maybe 2 of the 50 or so people in the audience could follow along. The point he was trying to make is at some point the people in the audience were not really interested in what was being presented because it is difficult to just follow along some really niche topic.

There was a book I read a couple years back called "Mathematica: A Secret World of Intuition and Curiosity", by David Bessis.

He discussed this topic and how generally it's left to those who are more notable in a field to ask the 'dumb' questions everyone else is afraid to ask. And such questions often need to be asked to get the audience on board and open the floodgates with areas of niche research - the speaker themself is often too far into the rabbit hole to discern the difference between opaque and obvious.

So it stands to reason, at smaller conferences this would be a big problem, with fewer thought leaders in attendance whose reputations are intact enough that they wouldn't mind looking foolish.

I have not much followed the science of gut microbiome and psychology. Is this really going where this article is pointing? That we can tease out causation in foods and habits via gut microbiome towards behavior and psychology? Pretty rad.

Yeah there's nontrivial evidence that among other things, the complex community living inside you manipulates your brain.

There's a decent amount of research going into the hormones that our GI biome produce and how it affects us. Our body has a few different biomes and they all seem to play somewhat important roles.