The technical side of this seems easy enough. The human side, that seems more complicated.

Like, if I were your doctor or contractor or kid's schoolteacher or whoever you hadn't happened to already whitelist, and had sent you something important for you, and got that back as a response... I'm sure as heck not paying when I'm trying to send you something for your benefit.

I keep seeing this sentiment repeated in discussions around LLM coding, and I'm baffled by it.

For the kind of function that takes me a morning to research and write, it takes me probably 10 or 15 minutes to read and review. It's obviously easier to verify something is correct than come up with the correct thing in the first place.

And obviously, if it took longer to read code than to write it, teams would be spending the majority of their time in code review, but they don't.

So where is this idea coming from?

But if I were an "editor," I actually take the time to understand codepaths, tweak the code to see what could be better, actually try different refactoring approaches while editing. Literally seeing how this can be rewritten or reworked to be better, that takes considerable effort but it's not the same as reading.

We need a better word for this than editor and reading, like something with a dev classification too it.

When the code is written, it's all laid out nicely for the reader to understand quickly and verify. Everything is pre-organized, just for you the reader.

But in order to write the code, you might have to try 4 different top-level approaches until you figure out the one that works, try integrating with a function from 3 different packages until you find the one that works properly, hunt down documentation on another function you have to integrate with, and make a bunch of mistakes that you need to debug until it produces the correct result across unit test coverage.

There's so much time spent on false starts and plumbing and dead ends and looking up documentation and debugging when you code. In contrast, when you read code that already has passing tests... you skip all that stuff. You just ensure it does what it claims and is well-written and look for logic or engineering errors or missing tests or questionable judgment. Which is just so, so much faster.

If you haven’t spent the time to try the different approaches yourself, tried the different packages etc., you can’t really judge if the code you’re reading is really the appropriate thing. It may look superficially plausible and pass some existing tests, but you haven’t deeply thought through it, and you can’t judge how much of the relevant surface area the tests are actually covering. The devil tends to be in the details, and you have to work with the code and with the libraries for a while to gain familiarity and get a feeling for them. The false starts and dead ends, the reading of documentation, those teach you what is important; without them you can only guess. Wihout having explored the territory, it’s difficult to tell if the place you’ve been teleported to is really the one you want to be in.

You're just making sure it works correctly and that you understand how. Not superficially, but thinking through it indeed. That the tests are covering it. It doesn't take that long.

What you're describing sounds closer to studying the Talmud than to reading and reviewing most code.

Like, the kind of stuff you're describing is not most code. And when it is, then you've got code that requires design documents where the approach is described in great detail. But again, as a reader you just read those design documents first. That's what they're there for, so other people don't have to waste time trying out all the false starts and dead ends and incorrect architectures. If the code needs this massive understanding, then that understanding needs to be documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals#Financial_num...

https://www.foobarclt.com/

And if you think you're supposed to get recourse, what do you do about the noise of traffic in the street, the neighbor's lawnmower, planes passing overhead, or trains on the closest train track?

Fortunately, the walls and windows of your home already block out most noise, and if you're really sensitive when you sleep then you use a white noise machine or wear earplugs.

Does there? Why? There's no legal means to keep private aircraft (e.g. a Cessna) from flying over your property as long as they're over 500 feet. Then drones are below that, typically between 50-400 feet.

They're already not allowed to interfere with your property or privacy however. They can't hover to annoy you, or get close to snap pictures or whatever.

If you're concerned about accidents and safety, then the solution is safety regulation. But the idea that drones must keep track of which individual properties allow flight above and which don't, and try to navigate some around some kind of patchwork accordingly, is simply unpractical and unreasonable.

If drones turn out to be a general nuisance then cities/counties can ban them altogether or whatever as a collective decision, but the idea that individual property owners should be able to ban them is a terrible idea.

They do go up into the air, but it's basically "dozens" of feet, as opposed to hundreds. Drones can't fly at 10 ft above your property, that's clearly considered trespass/nuisance. But at 300 ft it's totally fine.

There's no exact precise "hard" limit like 100 ft because there doesn't need to be, and it depends on the height of your home, etc. But drones already aren't allowed to just hover above your pool at eye level. But if it's just passing overhead with plenty of room to spare and not specifically bothering you, then that doesn't belong to your property. Nor should it.

If you're concerned about safety, you'd prefer an out-of-control drone hits a car instead of a backyard or farmer's field?

And if you're concerned about noise, homes tend to be along roads anyways. So it's not going to change that.

And FYI, they're basically always below 500 feet, so they don't hit planes.

> But the idea that drones must keep track of which individual properties allow flight above and which don't, and try to navigate some around some kind of patchwork accordingly, is simply unpractical and unreasonable

Flying over public roads would be a way to avoid flying over properties that do not allow drones and would not be unpractical.

But it does create them, if drones have to travel 2x as far by following roads, which wastes energy, limits range, and requires flying more drones to achieve the same level of e.g. deliveries.

The larger point is that property owners don't have a legitimate reason to ban drones passing 200 ft over their house. If they're bothered by noise, why are they going to be any less bothered because the drone is flying 50 ft away over the road at the end of their driveway? If they're worried about drones falling out of the sky, they're still going to be bothered about their car being hit during their entire morning and evening commute.

In general our society desperately needs to stop denying this basic division, and burden individuals less while applying heavier regulations to corporations/LLCs - ie artificial legal entities created by government whose sine-qua-non is already large amounts of paperwork. For another example, most of the opposition to digital privacy regulation would become moot.

You can look at past statistics and volatility. The answer is clearly that Bitcoin is far more risky on average. This is an objective question with an objective answer.

Or obviously it can be spread out, e.g. ~1% additional increase over 5 years.