Honestly original article is way more interesting and nuanced. I'm afraid LLM version is too short and while technically correct definitely feels like dry list of random facts from transcription.
> original article is way more interesting and nuanced
Oh I don't disagree in the slightest, after all it's basically an interview full of personal experiences and anecdotes.
But HN already has a problem with people commenting without reading the article, even if that article is relatively short. With an hour-long podcast episode or a transcript stuffed with filler words and partial sentences it's even worse.
> I'm afraid LLM version is too short and while technically correct definitely feels like dry list of random facts from transcription
Well, the LLM summary was a lot more thrilling and entertaining than my version. Sadly, it was also wrong and full of hallucinations.
"Know the future" is part of a software engineer's job description, at least insofar as "know" means "make informed predictions about".
Consider the case of making API calls to a third party. You, today, are writing a function that calls the remote API with some credentials, reauthenticates on auth failure, handles backoff when rate limited, and generates structured logs for outgoing calls.
You need to add a second API call. You're not sure whether to copy the existing code or create an abstraction. What do you do?
Well, in this case, you have a crystal ball! This is a common abstraction that can be identified in other code as well as your own. You don't know the future with 100% confidence, but it's your job to be able to make a pretty good guess using partial information.
I think this is what the original post that people took issue with said? By the time you write the same thing for the third time you are not predicting the future any more, you have practical evidence.
But a thing that you wrote the same a few times isn't something that's definitively required to be the same, it's something that happens to be the same right now. You can often clean things up by factoring out that duplication, but needing to add a bunch of parameters to the resulting function is probably a sign that you're trying to combine things that aren't the same and shouldn't be coupled together.
Where I'm saying you absolutely shouldn't copy paste is where there's a business or technical requirement for something to be calculated/processed/displayed exactly a certain way in several contexts. You don't want to let those drift apart accidentally, though you certainly might decouple them later if that requirement changes.
Why would you think I don't know how it works? Because I'm calling it a gambling machine and not hyping it up as a prediction market? Is it somehow different from all of the new sports betting sites that have wreaked havoc through the sports industry in a very short span of time? Don't fall for their dumb marketing, it's letting them spread poison.
