There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren’t getting the attention this one has.

The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.

If you’re stuck at review you aren’t seeing 10x development, you’re seeing 10x code generation.

This is especially important because without the review/test/deploy part of the pipeline you aren’t actually seeing any progress towards business goals.

Once you do get these parts sorted, you can then look at what multiplier you’re seeing.

That’s not to say there isn’t an improvement in your workflow, just that you can’t say with any certainty what kind of improvement without measuring the end to end.

It might turn out that the rest of the pipeline is way easier , in which case your multiplier will be higher, it might also be much harder, in which case the multiplier will be lower.

I’m not taking shots, i mean it seriously, especially if you need to report any of this to the rest of the business.

edit : In addition, if it turns out that review is going to be a bottleneck you can get extra resource pointed in that direction which will benefit the workflow overall.

another edit: i would consider correctly managing the expectations of those you report to as a vital skill.

Corner

Do you mean this ?

Just FYI , neofetch is dead/archived, though it still works afaik.

Here’s an article on it

If we are nature, anything we make is natural.

Unless you are saying that for it to be natural it has to he made using a biological process, perhaps inside the body?

As expected

?

As you have asked for, i have provided:

• My definitive stance, in simple bullet points so you don’t get confused
• My understanding of your stance, in the same format
• A list of direct questions (the ones with ? on the end)

Most of the questions are asking for citations from you, which has not been your strong suit so far, but I’m ready to be surprised.

Feel free to respond to them or continue deflecting, your call.

As expected

You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.

All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.

You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way.

You have responded…sort of, yes, good faith is debatable

My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.

Again, citation on the “reference to something not previously brought up” ?

You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.

Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.

I’ve been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it’s not a test, i genuinely want an example.

And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could…just read the history.

You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.

Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.

The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.

And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.

Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.

I’ve stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.

For clarification my stance is:

• God’s design (which you didn’t mean?, so that’s fine) and what is “natural” are a poor foundation for a shared framework of morals and ethics because they are subjective.
• Harm reduction includes psychological harm, to exclude that is poor reasoning.
• It’s possible to use body modification as an expression of self without having an underlying mental illness or psychological issue.
• Counting Crows big yellow taxi is superior musically but Joni Mitchell’s original is better for the feels.
• Providing a whole-ass book, or series of ideologies instead of an actual position is poor conversational technique, especially if you don’t even specify if it represents your position.

Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it’s when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.

Here is a summary (of my understanding) :

• You seem to have close to fundamentalist ⁰ (in my opinion) beliefs about what people should and shouldn’t be doing wrt body modifications. ¹
• Your stance is that you don’t push this on others ²
• You stated “I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design.” with no other context clues but later ( a few replies later ) said that isn’t what you meant. ³
• You think a lot of body modifications are due to underlying mental illness or psychological issues.
• Your boundary is restoring medical function/harm reduction is fine, anything else is not.
  • When asked if psychological harm reduction counts, you have provided no actual position except for a reference to a book.
• You have your opinions on what constitutes “natural”, when asked about a contradiction in clarification your response was:
  • Cite a definition with no explanation as to why it was needed
  • Ignore the contradiction entirely
  • Claim i was using a special definition without specifying what you thought it was.

`

• ⁰ See the previous reply about the definition of fundamentalism I’m using here
• ¹ Note the words in bold, they are important.
• ² I don’t necessarily believe that but I’d have no way to prove anything either way, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
• ³ Same as ²

You asked for an example, i gave you one.

If you need some clarification, just point at the bit that’s confusing and i’ll see what i can do.

…

Yeah, ignore all the below stuff, i’ll leave it there for posterity but i just a had a quick look through your history and i want nothing to do with any of that.

ok, i know i probably shouldn’t feed the trolls, but I’m genuinely interested how you got from “here is the example you asked for” to

> How is it other people’s fault. Nobody made you guys discriminante against black people and only eat junk food

No blame was assigned, no discrimination was mentioned, nor any specific ethnicities, the only thing i explicitly mentioned was poverty and starvation, low quality food was sort of mentioned, referentially.

The necessities of poverty is a bigger discussion and given how you did with this small one , i’ll just save us both time and just skip that entirely.

I’m also wondering who you mean by “you guys” who is it you think i am ?

Also also, in case it’s relevant, i picked the mainland US because you sounded like you thought it was only remote regions that had this problem, but Food Security is an issue in many places.

I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.

I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that’s what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.

i mean, if you’re going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn’t easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.

Or you could just say you don’t want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?

Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?

As with most of your responses you’re going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.

Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?

See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.

I mean, you still haven’t actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It’s more impressive than anything.

It’s absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?

oh damn, we can sigh? i didn’t realise that was on the table, i’ve been missing a trick this whole time.

ok, here i go.

based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.

I’m glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective “natural” exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.

It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance.

definition of what ? citation ?

Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue.

Yes and i stated my reasons why.

And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.

I do, again, my reasons are stated.

but seeing as were are doing definitions now:

3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.

sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?

For any particular reason…or ?

Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.

Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.

I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?

TL;DR;

Any place people can/do starve to death, but might potentially have easier physical access to processed(ultraprocesed ?) foods or potentially, local animals.

See below for specifics.

Mainland US?

There are plenty of people living at or below the poverty line, the nature of the food industry as it stands means that easy and affordable access to a non-meat diet isn’t always viable.

There are people dying of lack of access to food in general, let alone non-meat food, but let’s focus on the latter for now.

Let’s take the outdated atomic family, 2 adults 2.4 children.

Both adults working more than full time, kids in school full time.

Local access to enough viable non-meat foodstuffs isn’t always feasible within budgetary and time constraints see : Food Deserts

I mentioned caloric and nutritional for a reason, it’s possible to get enough calories and not be nutritionally sound in the medium to long term.

You eat what you can afford and by afford i mean in terms of both fiscal and time constraints.

There are of course vegetarian and vegan options for meals, rice, beans, lentils, vegetables etc.

Assuming you can get a hold of those things in enough quantities, all the time, forever.

I’m not saying it’s everyone all the time, I’m saying extreme poverty exists, people starve and starving people don’t always have the luxury of taking the moral high-ground.

Should society be like this? fuck no.

Is it , in some places? absolutely.

Does the Venn diagram of these people and the people complaining about AI being worse than the meat industry line up? i doubt it, but my point was :

Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.

The are plenty of large companies that don’t use oracle.

I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , I’m just saying they’re inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.

for example:

So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!

and

Uh. None of those rituals are natural.

Are contradictory.

If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, it’s still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.

To be clear I’m not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just aren’t part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term “nature” is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of it’s subjective interpretation.

Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but it’s a false dichotomy to suggest it’s either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.

If you don’t think it’s possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, that’s your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you aren’t forcing it on others , you do you.

Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.

I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didn’t make any sense as an argument in this context.

You also still haven’t addressed the harm reduction conversation.

It just wasn’t meant literally. Again, it’s rhetorical. That’s still an argument…

Not a good one, but sure, technically.

It’s not a great argument if taken literally but that’s also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn’t relevant(I’m not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.

It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.

It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.

You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.

I’m essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.

That’s also a poor argument in it’s ambiguity , “embrace their nature” is almost as hand-wavy as “gods design”, though it falls down for a different reason.

Replace god with nature, basically.

You’d have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than “nature”, there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice you’d care to mention.

If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you’ll have your reward? But it’ll also be your undoing.

That makes even less sense than “natural”.

It also addresses none of the points raised.

Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a “gut feeling” it’s my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.

You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they don’t have to make sense to me because I’m not using them.

Thanks for the back and forth anyway.

I thought the breaking in thing was for amps (specifically tube amps).

I’ve never heard it being used for cables, is that a real thing people do?

The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol.

That’s a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.

And you’ve managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn’t actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.

So i’ll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.

My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.

I wasn’t comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that’s a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.

I was using it as an example as to why “god’s design” is a poor argument.

As it seems “god’s design” wasn’t an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.

I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it’s many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).

I’m not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.

In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.

As you’ve stated you’re not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.

Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.