Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mkhattab's commentslogin

As a muslim, I hope he doesn't eff this up, Obama style. But the fact that he won, although not the blowout as some were expecting, restored a bit of my hope in the common man. Cuomo's attacks may have swayed some of the vote but ultimately failed.

I hope Mamdani succeeds for the sake of New York (California resident here) and hopefully this win inspires other young people around the country to participate in politics.


These deal numbers have lost all meaning for me.

There’s been some buzz around the official opening of the Grand Egyptian Museum, which I visited last month. That project took 1.1 to 1.2B USD. Double its original budget estimate but still the museum looks fantastic and it feels, tangibly, like it’s worth a billion.

In contrast with all the money spent on AI, it just feels like monopoly money. Where’s the monument to its success? We could’ve built flying cars or been back to the moon with this much money.


I've been using AI and so did many people I knew. It's resulted in tangible difference in my life.

It's much less likely that I'd drive a flying car and there is 0 chance that I would be the one going to the moon if we spent the equivalent money on those things instead.


Me too, once you’ve had a lot of practice with it (like anything) and know how to mitigate some of its weaknesses, then it’s a superpower.

I currently pay 200 USD a month for AI, and my company pays about 1,200 USD for all employees to use it essentially unlimited - and I get AT LEAST 5x the return on value on that, I would happy multiply all those numbers by 5 and still pay it.

Domain knowledge, bug fixing, writing tests, fixing tests, spotting what’s incomplete, help visualising results, security review generation for human interpretation, writing boilerplate, and simpler refactors

It can’t do all of these things end to end itself, but with the right prompting and guidance holy smokes does it multiply my positive traits as a developer


> I currently pay 200 USD a month for AI

> and I get AT LEAST 5x the return on value on that

You make $800 by paying OpenAI $200? Can you please explain how your the value put in is 5x and how I can start making $800 more a month?

> holy smokes does it multiply my positive traits as a developer

But it’s not you doing the work. And by your own admission, anyone can eventually figure it out. So if anything you’ve lost traits and handed them to the Llm. As an employee you’re less entrenched and more replaceable.


>You make $800 by paying OpenAI $200? Can you please explain how your the value put in is 5x and how I can start making $800 more a month?

I estimate that the addtional work I can do is worth that much. It doesn't matter that "I do it" or "The LLM does it" - Its both of us, but I'm responsible for the code (I always execute it, test it, and take responsibility for it). That's just my estimate. Also what a ridiculous phrasing, the intent of what I'm saying is "I would pay a lot more for this because I personally see the value in it" - that's a subjective judgement I'm making, I have no idea who you are, why would you assume thats a tranferrable objective measure that could simply be transferred to you? AI is a multiplier on the human that uses it, and the quality of the output is hugely dependent on the communication skill of the human, you using AI and me using AI will produce different results with 100% certainty, one will be better, it doesn't matter who, I'm saying, they will not be equal.

>But it’s not you doing the work. And by your own admission, anyone can eventually figure it out. So if anything you’ve lost traits and handed them to the Llm. As an employee you’re less entrenched and more replaceable.

So what? I'm results driven - the important thing is that the task gets done - it's not "ME" doing it OR the "LLM" doing it, it's Me AND the LLM. I'm still responsible if there's bugs in it, and I check it and make sure I understand it.

>As an employee you’re less entrenched and more replaceable.

I hate this attitute, this is an attitude of a very poor employee - It leads to gatekeeping and knowledge hoarding, and lots of other petty and defensive behaviour, and it what people think when they view the world from a point of scarcity. I argue the other way - the additional productivity and tasks that I get done with the assistance of the LLMS makes me a more valuable employee, so the business is incentivised to keep me more, there's always more to do, it's just we are now using chainsaws and not axes.


> I estimate that the addtional work I can do is worth that much. It doesn't matter that "I do it" or "The LLM does it" - Its both of us, but I'm responsible for the code (I always execute it, test it, and take responsibility for it). That's just my estimate. Also what a ridiculous phrasing, the intent of what I'm saying is "I would pay a lot more for this because I personally see the value in it" - that's a subjective judgement I'm making, I have no idea who you are, why would you assume thats a tranferrable objective measure that could simply be transferred to you? AI is a multiplier on the human that uses it, and the quality of the output is hugely dependent on the communication skill of the human, you using AI and me using AI will produce different results with 100% certainty, one will be better, it doesn't matter who, I'm saying, they will not be equal.

I disagree, I brought all this up because it seems you are confusing perceived, marketed/advertised value with actual value. Again you did not become 5 times more valuable in reality to your employer or by obtaining more money (literal value). You're comparing $200 of "value" which is 200 dollars to...time savings, unmeasureable skill ability? This is the unclear part.

> I hate this attitute, this is an attitude of a very poor employee - It leads to gatekeeping and knowledge hoarding, and lots of other petty and defensive behaviour,

You may hate that attitude but those people will be long employed after the boss sacked you for not taking enough responsibility for your LLM mistakes. This is because entrenching yourself is really the way it's always worked and those people that entrenched themselves didn't do it by relying on a tool to help them do their job. This is the world and sadly LLMs don't do anything to unentrench people making money.

All I am saying is enjoy your honeymoon period with your LLM. If that means creating apple and oranges definitions of "value" then comparing them directly as benefits, then more power to you.


hahaha, for sure! You do you, and I'll do me, lets review in a year, whats your email address? Lets compare

> llmtalk@mm.st

I tagged the address with this conversation. No cheating by generating your results.


What do you mean "No cheating by generating your results"? we cannot rely on honesty for this, it will have to be publicly visible, externally verifyable results.

How certain are you that you need to pay $200/mo/seat for this value?

I’d rather useful AI tools than a flying car or someone else going to the moon.

But I agree that the numbers are increasingly beyond reasonable comprehension


What percent of the world is going to set foot in this museum in the next few years? What percent has used or will use AI tools?

>it feels, tangibly, like it’s worth a billion

Lot of feeling going on in this comment, but that's not really how money works.


> Go prioritizes not breaking the ecosystem; this allows to assume that Hyrum’s Law will protect certain observable behaviors of the runtime, from which we may infer what can or cannot break easily.

If this assertion is correct, then effectively Go as a language is an evolutionary dead end. Not sure if I would Go fascinating in this case.


It's quite a leap from "certain observable behaviors of the runtime" cannot change to Go is a dead-end.

Go regularly makes runtime changes and language changes, see https://go.dev/blog/. Some highlights:

- Iterators, i.e., range-over-function

- Generics

- For loops: fixed variable capture

- Optimized execution tracing

- Changing the ABI from stack-based to register-based.


They introduced generics into the language whilst maintaining compatibility and breaking changes between language versions is painful in large code bases.


They also changed maps' iteration order to be random, rather than insertion order.


They broke the foreach loop behavior in 1.22, mainly to make it match what people expected.

https://go.dev/blog/loopvar-preview


Small, but significant point: you can easily avoid the new behavior. IIRC, if you had a pre-1.22 project, and didn't change anything, it still compiles as before. So if you relied on that behavior (which would be very weird, but who knows), backwards compatibility is still there for you.


It defaults to the new behavior. If you want the old behavior, you had to set a flag on the compiler. But this applies to all code, so any libraries you include would also get whatever behavior you set on the flag.


Does anyone know of an up-to-date or live visualization of the amount of scientific fraud? And perhaps also measuring the second order effects? i.e. poisoning of the well via citations to the fraudulent papers.

It's hard to tell at this point if it's just selection bias or if the scientific fraud problem has outgrown the scope of self-correction.


Minor annoyance:

Yesterday I was reading the docs and one of the first things I tried is the following, copy and pasted, which didn't work, using version 0.71:

  COPY (SELECT 42 AS a, 'hello' AS b) TO 'query.json' (FORMAT JSON, ARRAY TRUE);

  >>> Error: Binder Error: Unrecognized option CSV writer "array"
Just tried the above again with this release and it's fixed now.

Ideally, all commands listed in the documentation should be tested or verified to work.

Aside from that, nice work on the release! And I'm learning more and find it pretty cool, especially WASM support.


Howdy! The docs reflect the latest dev branch. For a specific release, you can pick it from the version dropdown in the top right!


I think it would be a better choice to default to showing the current stable release's docs rather than the dev branch?

That way users who download it see the docs they expect, and those who build from the dev branch or download preview builds have to go through an extra step.


Why not show the latest stable release docs by default? I assume that's what most people would use.


Sorry! Just realized that when I checked the docs again. My bad.


No worries! Thanks for reading the docs!


My manager used to do this all the time.

Typical scenario:

Manager: hey

<an hour or so may go by>

Me: what's up?

Manager: nvm


I don't believe Arabs are under the illusion that their government is non-tyrannical. I live in Egypt and there's not a single person I've met that doesn't think their government is corrupt, oppressive and inept. So there's really nothing revealing or surprising that a newspaper could report.

"BREAKING: Egyptian government is corrupt. In other news, water is wet."

On the other hand, there are perhaps many Israelis who believe the false narrative that the Palestinians sold their lands and left, but changed their minds and started the aggression.


Yes, one usually does and can repair all those things. Except for the pacemaker, which I’m not sure.


I agree. Who are all these people that pull backups, that maybe GBs or TBs in size for offline storage? How does that even work in practical terms in disaster scenarios like this where resolution times are expected within hours and not days?


It doesn't. I would hazard a guess that there are zero medium to large companies out there right now that could swap to a new cloud provider in a few hours.


Perhaps we need to distinguish, if at all possible these days, between the military and the military industrial complex. I don't believe the military is inherently evil but think it's necessary to the defense of the country. The military industrial complex, on the other hand, is in the business of warfare and perhaps not as necessary as we might think.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: