Creating a useful, correct, well editied blog takes a lot of effort and such people should be rewarded. Sure hosting is cheap, but creating is not free if you want it to be complex. This is not capitalism. Any system of society needs to have some way of determining who did something worth doing and ensuring those people get rewarded enough that they can eat and get other basic necessities of life and ideally some luxury. More importantly, any system of society cannot function if there's not some way of saying you are not doing your fair share. Now there's nothing wrong with society of saying certain people are disabled and can't do with the same fair share as some other people, but if nobody is doing their fair share, society will collapse.
A simple though like this post is low effort. Once in a while a quick blog post not a big cost. However, these relatively low-effort posts on Hacker News are not a particularly great value to society.
I used to work in a bookstore, and I've been working in libraries almost my entire career. Most books have no value. I've probably thrown out a million books in my life; most of them have been diet books, cook books, and political biographies.
My current library is around 2000 square feet and I acquire around 1000 books a year, so I have to toss around 1000 books a year, because they're made of matter and take up space.
The problem is sometimes management knows who the heroes are and so by not fixing things they know you are not competent. Thus letting things bubble up isn't always a good plan. It is really hard when you are on the bottom to know which case things are.
If the high school project has been improved by many engineers over a few years it likely is complex enough that a senior engineer cannot rewrite it for a reasonable cost. It isn't clear if next years models will be enough better that they can rewrite it for a reasonable cost. If they are they can probably extract the requirements and special cases from the code.
Following my analogy, the high school project would have been continuously extended by high schoolers passing the project on from class to class each year, rather than "improved by many engineers". The "engineers" (future models) don't get the project until currently models have had their way for a while. I think that makes the "rewrite from scratch" plan a whole lot more compelling.
It's a bad analogy. Say what you will about the strengths and weaknesses of current LLMs but there's no "high-schoolers" (outside of rare prodigies) who can write code at the level of a frontier LLM.
It appears that either answer would be accepted, and so I'm fine with it. If it really is there is one correct answer then I'm against this. This feels like a problem where a good enough solution can be done in the time of an interview if you do it by hand (though if anyone knows about dates they will expect there is a lifetime of fixing special cases left if you don't use the library)
I prefer fizz-buzz as a question because it is obvious there isn't a library. It is also a problem you should be able to do in an interview. It has enough weirdness that there is no best answer, despite having several workable paths you could try.
I mean, any answer is "accepted" in the sense that the whole point is to let me see how you think about solving simple problems. What has been distressing is seeing the number of applicants who can't even try, when it's the trying I want to see.
I tried to recall the last time I saw what I felt was an ego-driven tirade on HN comments, and I'm currently drawing a blank. There's a lot of what's called "performative erudition", and there is the occasional lengthy diatribe, but I would call neither one of those ego-driven tirades.
For him, the cost of editing was much larger. Condensing your writing in his time meant rewriting it more concisely, requiring strictly more time than collecting his thoughts as he went.
With LLM's, we are in a new state of the world: it can expand any one sentence off hand remark in an essay.
You seem to be talking about how one can expand information into useless babbling, whereas you are responding to a comment about condensing information into true essence.
Sure; I was using shorthand. Sometimes a whole edifice of ideas rests on one shaky one; and if you can challenge that one the whole thing falls apart. But even being able to identify the shaky one demonstrates engagement. That's really the key.
There are obvious exceptions to that rule. Laconic phrases are short but have a lot to them, while AI slop is long while having very little to it. But it's a decent rule of thumb when considering the middle of the bell curve.
Bach did not invent equal temperament. He probably had thought of it at some time, but his writings make it clear that he would be against such a concept. He was in favor of a 12-tone temperament, but it wasn't equal. It's not clear, but I generally doubt he invented it, only that he heard it at some point and favored it.
Thank you for the clarification. Music is weird. My understanding was the well-tempered clavichord was one of the oldest deviations (that was written) from the concept of just intonation: you learn something everyday.
"the well-tempered clavichord" is early in the transition to well temperaments, previously organs (and harpsichords) couldn't play in all keys which was limiting. It may well be the oldest thing we have written (I don't know) however there were a lot of different experiments.
You can tell that this wasn't equally tempered because composers talked about the "color" of each key, a concept that doesn't make sense unless the keys sound different.
All the Suzuki teachers I know use the book even in the early years for even their youngest students. It isn't what the method intended, but that is what is commonly done.
Not everyone tunes their piano equal temperament. I use an alternative tuning ebvtiii which I think is a better compromise. There are a ton of well-tempered tunings with various compromises. I would like a piano that has 15 keys per octave so I can tune it in quarter comma mean tone. (i've seen pipe organs done this way, but never piano.)
The average car in the US is 12 years old, so the average lifespan is obviously longer. Though average includes some collectors car that nobody drives daily.
A simple though like this post is low effort. Once in a while a quick blog post not a big cost. However, these relatively low-effort posts on Hacker News are not a particularly great value to society.
reply