Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot Mniot

  • 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 10th, 2025

help-circle




  • The theory is that the new hire gets better over time

    It always amazes me how few people get this. Have they only ever made terrible hires?

    The way that a company makes big profits is by hiring fresh graduates and giving them a cushy life while they grow into good SWEs. By the time you’re paying $200k for a senior software engineer, they’re generating far more than that in value. And you only had to invest a couple years and some chump change.

    But now businesses only think in the short-term and so paying $10k for a month of giving Anthropic access to our code base sounds like a bargain.


  • Executives are mostly irrelevant as long as they’re not forcing the whole company into the bullshit.

    I’m seeing a lot of this, though. Like, I’m not technically required to use AI, but the VP will send me a message noting that I’ve only used 2k tokens this month and maybe I could get more done if I was using more…?









  • This is good advice for all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information.

    The whole paragraph is kinda FUD except for this. Normal research practice is to (get ready for a shock) do research and not just copy a high-level summary of what other people have done. If your professors were saying, “don’t cite encyclopedias, which includes Wikipedia” then that’s fine. But my experience was that Wikipedia was specifically called out as being especially unreliable and that’s just nonsense.

    I personally use ChatGPT like I would Wikipedia

    Eesh. The value of a tertiary source is that it cites the secondary sources (which cite the primary). If you strip that out, how’s it different from “some guy told me…”? I think your professors did a bad job of teaching you about how to read sources. Maybe because they didn’t know themselves. :-(



  • I think the academic advice about Wikipedia was sadly mistaken. It’s true that Wikipedia contains errors, but so do other sources. The problem was that it was a new thing and the idea that someone could vandalize a page startled people. It turns out, though, that Wikipedia has pretty good controls for this over a reasonable time-window. And there’s a history of edits. And most pages are accurate and free from vandalism.

    Just as you should not uncritically read any of your other sources, you shouldn’t uncritically read Wikipedia as a source. But if you are going to uncritically read, Wikipedia’s far from the worst thing to blindly trust.