Depends on the industry and specifics of a company. Are they game developers with multiple sites? Is the customer a large company with a lot of vendor relationships using different systems? Are they a vendor of some customizable component used by many large companies? Is there a good integration with their bug tracking? Do they need to long term support of 25 years? Pain was in some part of their process that was constrained, maybe technical (workflow or integrations), maybe legal.
If Git works well enough, great! If not, maybe a different system fits better[0].
> Put plainly, we do not believe that Git is the future of source control. Git has served developers well for many years, but it was designed around the constraints of 2005, not 2025, let alone 2035. For example, it was built for the Linux kernel: an open source project. Open Source is incredibly important to our industry, but this means it’s missing key features that are useful for organizations that aren’t sharing their code with everyone.
This is supposed to be the most critical part of the blog post and it's really anemic. It never explains what's wrong with git.
Trying to keep it high level here. Explaining this is important, but it's just an entirely different kind of post. That post would be deep in the weeds, and this one is at a high level. Both matter, for sure. And we'll put out more technical posts as time goes on. But since we don't really have much on our blog just yet, we're starting with more abstractt stuff.
Probably something about integrating access control to a repository so a deparment has the source for a certain library, while the others only see the header files and compiled objects to use?
Do you have a source for that? My experience has been that people with ADHD are rather underrepresented, the ones who are overrepresented are rather hyper-extroverts that sometimes present similarly, but that do not have the same impulse control challenges (impossible to focus on boring tasks, hyperfocus on fun tasks) as someone with true ADHD.
I can’t tell if you’re implying that those with ADHD are more likely or less likely to think and act in a childlike way. Or whether doing so or not is what causes the over representation in high level positions.
Could you please elaborate?
My understanding is that ADHD would make you more likely to behave in childlike ways as an adult, but not that that would necessarily lead to holding leadership positions.
I'm not going to argue splitting hairs about what ADHD is. Many of the most famous CEOs and startup founders have properly diagnosed ADHD and have been very vocal about it. This is also often true of any business owner you've met in real life. I didn't think this statement would get any pushback since not too long ago the front page of HN was touting this as a "superpower".
The high-functioning expression of impulsivity is impatience with processes and insistence on maximum efficiency. I guess lately this is seen as negative because of the zeitgeist around AI?
Tao is talking about this impatience.
> Prematurely putting such games to an end by immediately providing the nominal goal --- for instance, providing these children with a brief lecture on infinity and the unbounded nature of the natural numbers --- defeats the entire "purpose" of such curiosity-driven play
It's not that they don't remember playing as children, but that they resent the time spent on it as "wasteful". They do mean well by trying to squash play time, but yes of course that's harmful and naive.
All well and good. I agree with the sentiment, but why are we asking for permission? Does this not strongly demonstrate the inherent corruption of institutions?
Yes, people realizing that for themselves was the intent of my link. This discussion about trivia we're having right now is the only mojo left in the bottle.
It's the same parent company as the security guards at your local shopping mall. Pinkerton is like the "geek squad" brand of security.
Do a few bad grades really harm economic outcomes, though? Educators took a hard stance against AI rather quickly.
Outside of delusional grifty startups, the broader corporate world is only using copilot for taking meeting notes and (sort of) entertaining the notion of non-devs writing (and not maintaining) their own experimental janky apps where impact is low.
Outside of all the shit-stirrers on HN and clueless bubble social media, I don't see LLMs making a difference. In fact, the fearmongering is at this point insulting to the intelligence of the people who are supposedly helpless against big bad AI.
I've been hearing this retort every year. The only difference this time is you're not a green account.
If things have actually changed, you wouldn't be begging the question. LLMs, as popularly used, are still just a new kind of search engine for natural language answers to natural language questions. They're portable in a way, too. That's really cool tech, but not a revolution. It's pretty underwhelming compared to previous decades of change. It's a lot more error prone too, since it's a mudball of stats.
If we filter out the unsubstantiated fearmongering, all we've got left to discuss are NIMBY rants and geopolitics. At that point, we're not even talking about AI anymore.
>If we filter out the unsubstantiated fearmongering, all we've got left to discuss are NIMBY rants and geopolitics.
I'm sorry, what?
I'll put it to you again, you sound like me after playing around with gpt 3.5. It was interesting, but it wasn't good. There were still questions as to whether scaling would persist. My doubts were pretty much obliterated. LLMs haven't been mere text completion for a while now. Heck, even a model small enough to fit on my 3090 is now shockingly competent and useful. Does claude sometimes go off on weird tangents making me reel it in? Yeah, but it's genuinely great in present form, and it's the worst it'll ever be.
You're welcome to your opinion. It used to be mine too, but I disagree now. I find pretty much every AI benchmark has shown forward progress, some with non public datasets, and some things have gotten scarily better.
You're also welcome to put your two cents in, but your replies sound identical to the bots and throwaways of last year and the year before that.
Every time it's the same agenda: trying to keep up appearances of meaningful engagement. In reality, I'm the only idiot willing to engage anymore and the opinion has always been majority negative on practical applications of LLMs from day one. It's not like anyone who frequents HN was blindsided by the initial release of ChatGPT like the rest of the public. The negativity has only grown since then.
There are important niches for LLMs, but they don't really make money without bigger ideas. I am very happy with the results for the broader topics of natural language processing and accessibility. Software is now easier to use and write. People have more agency over technology in general.
These are massive leaps. They are still tiny hops compared to what people's expectations were. That's only a failure of marketing, and a testament to its power even when botched. The end result is the same: the public yawns big and takes the almost invisible results for granted. Talking to a computer finally works like they expected over 20 years ago. Talking to a computer still sucks though. It's an entirely new genre of computer error.
I feel similar, but haven't seen a "film" worth a review in ages. It's always the same problems: glacially slow pacing, one-dimensional characters, dialogue and plot insist on injecting politics or memes (that are probably stale by the time it's released), etc.
Do you have any recommendations that aren't that? I just want to watch a real movie made in the last 20 years.
You're right. I wouldn't bother with a review for any comedy. A sense of humor is very fickle and you usually know if you're going to like it ahead of time based on who is involved.
We should be introducing people to vim long before they are learning it under pressure. As you say, it's really not a lot to remember.
reply