I'm not weighting in on the ability of people to detect patterns, but hand washing is a bad example.
Detecting a pattern between 2 things that did happened (everyone but Dave ate pork, and everyone but Dave got sick) is orders of magnitude easier than detecting a pattern between something that did happened (this patient got sick) and something that didn't (everyone washed their hands).
> I honestly can't imagine this. If the AI says "However, a downside of approach B is that it takes O(n^2) time instead of the optimal O(nlog(n))", what do you think the odds are that it literally made up both of those facts? Because I'd be surprised if they were any lower than 30%. It's an extremely confident bullshitter, and you're going to use it to talk about engineering tradeoffs!?
Being confidently incorrect is not a unique characteristic of AIs, plenty of humans do it too. Being able to spot the bullshit is a core part of the job. If you can't spot the bullshit from AI, I wouldn't trust you to spot the bullshit from a coworker.
If it's your personal project, you are in charge of deciding which "behaviors that are down stream of version control" you want to adopt. If you are applying unnecessarily complex processes for a given project, that's on you.
> You're, perhaps unintentionally, moving the goalposts a bit. "Version control" doesn't just mean database of code snapshots. It simultaneously connotes all the related functions and development processes we have around version control.
Not OP, but I'd argue you are the one moving the goalpost here.
If someone says they are not using "version control", I'm going to assume that they are not using git (or similar) at all. Any other meaning would be so arbitrary to be almost useless. No one can guess where you draw the line in the sand between "I'm not using any version control tool" to "I'm technically using a version control tool but I'm not doing version control because I don't do X,Y,Z".
I personally can't imagine writing any non trivial piece of code without using git. Even in its more basic form, the advantages are overwhelming. But at no point of my 20+ years of development I've ever applied the same rigorous version control rules of professional environments to my personal projects. At best I've used branches to separate features (rarely, and mostly when I got tired of working on a problem and wanted to work on a different one for some time), and PRs to have an opportunity to review the changes I made to see if I forgot to do something. At "worst" I simply used it as a daily snapshot tool (possibly with some notes about what's left to do) or as a checkpoint after getting something complicated working.
If the author has finally figured out rigorous source control can be unnecessary and counterproductive on small projects - good on them! But if that's the case then say that. Calling the fine tuning of which process you want (or don't want) to use "no version control" is just misleading.
Moral considerations aside, I'm really skeptical of the assumption that following LLM instructions = low IQ.
As always, HN is a very biased audience. Most of us have probably read about how LLMs are the best bullshitters in the world, and we've seen a lot examples like this that prove how little LLMs can be trusted.
But in the general population? I'd bet there's plenty of intelligent people who haven't had the same exposure to LLM critiques and might trust their output out of ignorance rather than lack of intelligence.
I agree, and I think there might be an argument to be made that people with higher IQ are more prone to believing in (gramatically) well-written texts from authoritative-looking sources.
After all, people with higher IQ are used to reading books and believing them, whereas those with supposedly lower IQ tend to dismiss books and experts, instead believing in their own real-world experiences.
> The first example is why `UPDATE CASCADE` was implemented. So it's possible to use natural keys as identity without the fear of children table. At least in most databases it works.
This is only true in a system using a single database, not replicating data in external services, and not offering APIs.
And while it might work today when the service/website is still fairly small and self contained, the requirements might change at any time. So the title (You will [future] regret it) still applies to this solution
Every point in the sky is on a possible orbit (or on infinite orbits?), so you are not really reducing the problem space.
Our planets' orbit do tend to be somehow aligned, so you could make the (possibly wrong) assumption that the 9th planet is also somehow aligned. This might reduce the search space by 50%+.... but even then you'd still be several orders of magnitude off by the precision needed to go looking for it.
> We have interns coming in and fully ready within an hour or two of setup. Same way changing local machines is a breeze with very little downtime.
This sounds like the result of a company investing in tooling, rather than something specific to a remote dev env. Our local dev env takes 3 commands and less than 3 hours to go from a new laptop to a fully working dev env.
Detecting a pattern between 2 things that did happened (everyone but Dave ate pork, and everyone but Dave got sick) is orders of magnitude easier than detecting a pattern between something that did happened (this patient got sick) and something that didn't (everyone washed their hands).