Strange that noone noticed the article saying "Nobody said 'Google did it for me' or 'it was the top result so it must be true.'"

Because they did. They were the quintessential "Can I haz teh codez" Stack Overflow "programmer". Most of them, third world. Because that's where surviving tomorrow trumps everything today.

Now, the "West" has caught up. Like they did with importing third world into everything.

Which makes me optimistic. Only takes keeping composure a few more years until the house of cards disintegrates. Third world and our world is filled to the brim with people who would take any shortcut to avoid work. Shitting where they eat. Littering the streets, rivers, everywhere they live with crap that you throw out today because tomorrow it's another's problem.

Welcome to third world in software engineering!

Only it's not gonna last. Either will turn back to engineering or turn to third world as seemingly everything lately in the Western world.

There's still hope though, not everybody is a woke indoctrinated imbecile.

>> I'm now in my 50s. [...] One thing I do now is try to look after all the youngest grads and new joiners. Its so cutthroat now it seems no one has time to help anyone else, so I like helping people get up and running and encouraging them to enjoy their work while being productive and getting their skills up. No one else seems to care.

Seeing them youngsters come and go faster than batches of recruits thrown into combat at Stalingrad, I no longer care either. Have better things to do than train them so they can jump ship for a higher salary. I only relate to people with whom I can eventually connect over long term and these youngsters ain't it.

Completely confused about which parts are sarcasm. Pretty sure the last sentence is and by this the rest must be as well. But oh boy in what kind of world do we live where you seriously can't tell easily anymore.

To be fair, Trump seems to be doing more for software freedom and against rent-seeking US monopolies than any previous president. Not saying he's doing it intentionally, but he is doing it. Heck, maybe he applies that policy domestically and US software companies flourish once again without the grip of big tech and unfair business practices that starve their competition. Right to repair, reverse-engineering and modding coming very soon...

First sentence is genuine and the last, with the Nobel prize, it's sarcasm, so you nailed it. But it confused a lot of Sheldons based on the number of downvotes I received.

Embryo selection is a thing. At an IVF clinic, they will always fertilize multiple eggs at once. Once the embryo has divided into eight cells, it is possible to take the eight cell and perform DNA sequencing. You can then choose the embryo that doesn't have heritable diseases (with some degree of luck).

Note that I'm not advocating for nebulous polygenic risk scores and especially not for selecting aesthetic traits but simple genetic screening for known genetic diseases.

"More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown on nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history,"

Too bad that this is also a first time in history, following massacre of protesters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae...

>> And what's so special about books in particular, anyway? What's wrong with reading articles and webpages?

Nothing, really, but I suspect that is declining too. I read historical books mostly, some 4-5 per year. Like last time I ordered "Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing, and Dying, The Secret WWII Transcripts of German POWS", in English because unfortunately it wasn't yet translated in my native language. But other than that I still read printed magazines. One that my father used to read so I picked the habit from him and used to be weekly but now it's bi-monthly because ... fewer readers. And I read a ton of online articles.

But you can notice the repeating pattern: read, read, read. Because I got good at it waay before there was an alternative, and because of that, the alternative has supplanted but never replaced the original. But my kid? Never read anything in his life that wasn't forced upon him. And the whole new generation is like this. He can read because can't function in the modern world without it but reading as primary source of gathering information? No chance.

I suspect this gets us back to medieval times where there are a few erudites and lots of imbeciles, my son included.

You know it’s really strange when I think about it. I no longer feel motivated to read books mostly, but I could easily spend an hour or two a day reading HN comments and Reddit threads.

Although part of that I’m sure is that as I’m visually impaired, reading physical books is far more tiring than reading off a screen where I can make the text the exact size I want.

Used to be a voracious reader as a kid (though 99% non-fiction).

This is why Hackernews and all other social media are blocked on my phone which I now leave across the room all day long when at home, and at home when I go out a lot of times.

Now, I read the New Yorker which I had a pile of half read issues. There's one at the table where I eat, one in the loo, one on the couch, and when my brain gets tired of staring at the wall... I pick up a copy when I don't want to do anything particularly creative.

Finishing a good New Yorker article, or a book laying by my bed often expands my worldview, my vocabulary, and my understanding of current events. Reading a ton of comments online has never really produced that same experience even in a place like HackerNews which has (IMO) much higher quality comments than many places.

So you can get back into it! And it seems to be like riding a bike, very easy to get back into. And the more I read, the more I'm happy I'm reading.

For me, it's the realization of how much filler (tangents, embellishment, hyperbole, pretentiousness, ego, straight up BS, etc) is in long form content that makes it's really hard to make a commitment to anything new. Once you see it, it's ALL you see. I was rewatching some Feynman lectures this morning, and I couldn't get past it anymore. What I used to find engaging, was a major distraction. And the more I learn about stuff, the quicker I see when it's happening, even subjects I'm not familiar with.

This is a really interesting observation to me because it touches at something that I think is at risk of getting lost as the world leans further and further towards optimisation as a core goal. Get to the point, no deviations, transmit the information to me and on to the next.

I can objectively/rationally, see the appeal but I feel the world is a lesser place for it. There's a lack of something I can't quite articulate, maybe personality (not quite but something like that), that makes for a less fulfilling.

It's sort like Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, which is one of the finest texts humanity has imo. And the best bit for me is, the turtle crossing the road. Yes, there's some symbolism, but its largely a pointless interlude; in the sense that in another version of the universe, there's an editor out there who would have cut that bit, and it wouldn't have affected the story too significantly. Yet something incredible would have been lost.

Symbolism is great, it just have to serve a purpose. Constantly insisting "this idea blows your mind" is not that, especially when it doesn't deliver, or it only "blew my mind" because a key component of the idea was withheld until the end, like a murder mystery.

Pop-sci / self-help I feel is particularly egregious in this regard. Like you could take the entirety of many self-help books and summarise them into a few bullet points.

Though having said that, if the ultimate goal of writing is to transfer one person’s experience of human thought to another, then the filler often makes sense. They’re trying to take you on the same mental journey that they went on. At least that’s the good-faith interpretation.

I think filler is also akin to the difference in experience between listening to an audiobook at 1x speed vs say 3x speed. The slower pace gives your brain time to work.

But I totally agree, once you know a bunch about a subject the filler becomes unnecessary.

1) The problem with teaching is that "filler" often isn't.

Teaching is art and not science in spite of what so many tech folks think. If I'm teaching a hard subject, I don't know a priori what will click with each student. I'm trying to give you multiple tools for you to try to use while working on problems to get you to your next level of understanding. Some of those tools are idiosyncratic to my experience and not in the textbook. Most of my suggestions are going to wind up being useless to a particular student, but I'm hoping that at least one of them connects properly.

For example, the biggest complaint of linear algebra students is "This is boring and doesn't have any use." Well, I can talk about how its used in graphics, but the mathematicians will call that filler. I can talk about solving differential equation systems for the engineers, but the CS students will call that filler. The instructor, of course, thinks all that stuff is filler and would rather get back to teaching the subject, but understands that getting people interested and enthusiastic is a part of the teaching process.

2) The "filler" part of "traditional" media is completely different for each person while "social" media filler is useless to everybody.

This is something that so many people don't seem to grasp. Each individual will fixate on and take something different from a book or lecture. That's good. As long as each part of media resonates and has a purpose with somebody consuming it, it's not "filler".

The problem is that "social" media rewards behaviors that create useless "filler". So, social media is in a war--people get more sensitive to ignoring useless filler; the social media sites ramp more aggressive garbage; people get more sensitive; lather, rinse, repeat.

The problem is that your social media "useless filler" pattern matcher learns to be super aggressive and classifies anything that doesn't immediately engage with you, personally and immediately as garbage. That's fine when doomscrolling; that's not fine when reading a book or listening to a lecture.

That's not to say that there aren't poor lectures or poor quality books. There very definitely are. And you should definitely leave those behind.

However, you need to turn those super aggressive filler filters off when an author or lecturer is genuinely trying to engage you in good faith. If an author or lecturer did the work, is well-prepared, and is making solid points and progress, you need give them the leeway to do their job.

For me, it's just deteriorating attention span.

It's hard for me to get into books nowadays. But if I manage to get through a few pages, the momentum carries me through.

I don't hate reading. I just have trouble starting.

Modern equivalent, working on Linux with remote connection from Visual Studio Code is LLDB.

Takes some effort to configure it but beats "printf" (i.e. logging) in the end.

>> I finish a lot of work at 3 PM.

>> I send it at 8:47 PM.

>> Same document. Different optics.

>> If I send it at 3 PM, it looks like normal work hours. If I send it at 8:47 PM, it looks like I'm going above and beyond.

I do the same thing but the exact textbook reverse opposite. Granted, I'm a techie / regular developer who makes 1/3rd of the IT director in cause, but can't complain, I'm definitely not starving.

So here's my version (sometimes):

>> I finish a lot of work at 3 AM.

>> I send it at 8:47 AM.

>> Same document. Different optics.

>> If I send it at 3 AM, it looks like like I'm going above and beyond. If I send it at 8:47 AM, it looks normal work hours.

Those familiar with the Gervais Hierarchy theory and my rank in the corporate ladder, will understand: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

They've reached the bottom of the sack. Hope the Arabs are wiser than the suckers who burned out their money.

> short of major algorithmic breakthroughs I am not convinced the global demand for GPUs will drop any time soon

>> Or, you know, when LLMs don't pay off.

Heh, exactly the observation that a fanatic religious believer cannot possibly foresee. "We need more churches! More priests! Until a breakthrough in praying technique will be achieved I don't foresee less demand for religious devotion!" Nobody foresaw Nietzsche and the decline in blind faith.

But then again, like an atheist back in the day, the furious zealots would burn me at the stake if they could, for saying this. Sadly no longer possible so let them downvotes pour instead!