Why? Everyone has alternative news sources where they can find such stories, and there’s nothing new here. There’s always some tragedy that you could argue deserves more attention, I don’t think we should hold our guidelines hostage to pleas for the heart.
> I don’t think we should hold our guidelines hostage to pleas for the heart.
I don't think that's an accurate framing of the situation. It's a single post that enough people decided was worthy of being upvoted to the front page. I think allowing the community to decide is far more inline with the spirit of hacker news than the outright banning a category of posts.
Without taking one side or the other I just want to point out that a large part of the utility of guidelines or rules is that communities left to their own devices typically develop toxic patterns that are detrimental on the whole. They enable the community to decide not to leave something up to the community in the future.
It's a large part of the idea behind countries having constitutions for example.
Agreed. In the ideal, I would love for politics and many things to be part of HN, because I yearn for the thoughtful, objective, "hacker" analysis on all topics. But in practice I've seen that generally speaking HN isn't capable of this. And realistically it's not fair to expect that as it isn't really consistent with human nature (despite my wish that it was). Someday though I hope to find the "hacker news for {politics, news}" but I realize it may just not be possible.
No one is saying “build x” and getting good results unless they didn’t have any expectations to begin with. What you describe is precisely right. Using the agents require a short leash and clear requirements and good context management (docs, skills, rules).
Some people (like me) still think that’s a fantastic tool, some people either don’t know how to do this or think the fact you have to do this means the tools are bunk. Shrug.
Huh? I have over a hundred services/repos checked out locally, ranging from 10+ years old to new. I have no problem leveraging AI to work in this large distributed codebase.
Even internal stuff is usable by the model because it’s a pattern matching machine and there should be documentation available, or it can just study the code like a human.
In total LOC sure. This isn’t close to my companies total repos either… But surely a FAANG dev isn’t writing code across thousands of repos. In fact the people I know most at fang have less scope than this not more. So what is the relevant blocker here?
Why should I spend my mental energy doing simple things just to avoid being perceived as “lazy”? I have endless other engineering work to do other than typing code.
You don’t say “find people to kill and kill them” you say, “given this list of locations, which ones could be harboring terrorists or hidden military bases?” Etc. Or even more abstract constructs based on domain aliases where AI assists in pattern matching and automation but isn’t really thinking in terms of moral domains.
Do you add these into the code or into the review itself? I sometimes write these into the review, but I wonder if it's a useful information that should actually be inside the code that will get lost when the PR is merged
Into the review is what I’m talking about. The diff is often a scattered collection of files missing context, and may have refactors that obscure behavioral changes.
So there is reason to add comments that address a different readers understanding than the code rest.
That’s pretty presumptive of how obviously the author could improve it. As someone who writes a lot of docs, I find feedback and preferences varies wildly. They may just have well made it “worse” to your preferences by hand editing it more.
reply