The study that defined the 10x engineer defined him as 10x as good as the worst engineer. If there is a 0.1x engineer, and a 1x engineer, that 1x engineer is the very definition of a 10x engineer.
> Lines of code has always been a terrible metric. But all else being equal it is a measure.
A terrible metric is _worse_ than no metric. A terrible metric can _only_ lead you in the wrong direction. "No metric" means saying we don't know, and that leads us to stop and reconsider. But we've taken "move fast and break things" as a mantra, and we'd rather run towards any direction than stay still.
Using LoC as a metric for quality of LLMs will promote LLMs that write more code. It's better to say we have no way to compare different LLMs than it is to say "let's use the LLMs that produced more LoC because at least we can measure that". We, as an industry, should be focusing on developing better metrics for quality, not on improving LLMs based on known-bad metrics. We should be turning to the computer scientists, not to the venture capitalists.
When a pundit talks about how many lines of code an LLM has created, we should lose all respect for them. It's as if someone talking about physics measured the phlogiston, or as if a doctor started measuring our skulls. We know these theories don't work, and anyone using them should be mocked.
Just because it's impossible to solve a problem 100% doesn't mean that it's impossible to improve the state of things. Perfect is the enemy of good. There aren't that many people doing random chaotic damage, and it's not worth it to protect against all their potential harm.
Freedom of speech is not defined by the US constitution. Free speech is an ideological stance, not a legal definition. US laws protects some forms of free speech and not others.
Good luck with that. We can all day long discuss what is free speech and not free speech but unless it’s a protected class or a carveout for payment processors it does not matter. Propose solutions instead. You could argue that payment processors control so much of the market that it’s like the government limiting speech but I would counter argue that they could use crypto easily.
Not to mention usually businesses use payment processors as the scape goat. Very few business, other than purpose built, want to deal with adult content.
Same, none of the ones I worked on. But I did more work for Nickelodeon than CN, so I'm not really surprised. I only remember one CN one I did, but I might have worked on two or three that I'd know if I saw them again...
There are very few from 2008-2012 which is when I was working on that.
It's easier (or at least different) to say to your friends "let's go to a phone free bar" than it its to say "let's go to a bar, phone-free".
In the first case, a third party came up with the idea, and you are subjecting yourselves to their idea. In the second case, it's your idea, and your friends are subjecting themselves to your idea. Really if you are proposing, there's always a bit of "your idea" there, but the "blame" can be shared with someone else who's not in the group.
A system where this can happen is healthy. The alternative is a system where once legislation fails to pass you are forbidden to modify it and try again. _That_ would be a broken system, where compromise is impossible, and attempting to make any change is a very risky move because you might fail, forever. There would be a chilling effect, legislation would take longer to change, and laws would become frozen in the past.
What we are seeing here is checks and balances, working as intended.
The point of PRs is not to avoid mistakes (though sometimes this can happen). Automated tests are the tool to weed out those kinds of mistakes. The point of PRs is to spread knowledge. I try to read every PR, even if it's already approved, so I'm aware of what changes there are in code I'm going to own. They are the RSS feed of the codebase.
You can also inherit talent, but "the descendants of those worthy are worthy" is a belief humanity spilled a lot of blood to get away from.
reply