Know which of your neighbors have unsecured firearms lying around. Sadly all to common where I am.

Diversity doesn't make places more dangerous (if i understand the stats). But humans are naturally tribal and fear those who look and act significantly different.

That depends on an arbitrary perception of 'my tribe'. Irish and Italians used to riot against each other. Germans were hated (look up a quote from Benjamin Franklin). Protestants and Catholics used to riot. Every wave of immigrants seems to get the same treatment by some.

Within a few generations, their decendants marry each other.

This is something a lot of people seem to believe that is not borne out in the research. Plenty of specific counter examples like Queens NY, a densely populated and exceptionally diverse place with crime rates comparable or better than many much more homogenous places in America. Poverty and income inequality are much better predictors. I felt this reddit comment from a while ago did a pretty good job rolling up sources on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1jxff...

This distinction seems more arbitrary over time. Growing up I was taught different species couldn’t interbreed. But what about Neanderthal and Sapiens?

Funny tangent: this comic has strong feelings about such distinctions, using "dog" as the canonical example:

https://youtu.be/dNLLXZgN4Mc?si=SUhHZ2uzMZ7jgejI

> It's not replacing designers.

Except it is. Plenty of places will say this is all good enough and not hire, or even lay off, the UI/UX person. I've seen this firsthand.

I have seen this as well, except the UI ends up all looking similar, because the harness prompt and training data doesn’t change much

The average becomes the same shade of gray. Familiarity breeds contempt. New types of design will emerge that are expensive to copy, because differentiation drives competition

Which is perfectly adequate for 95% of applications. Hell, it’d probably improve most applications if they adopted some proven shade of gray.

Why do people feel that each and every tool they use needs its own unique look and feel? And why are people willing to pay more for that? In some cases, sure. For my smart sprinkler app.. I don’t give a damn if it looks like 1000 other apps.

I’d actually prefer if all of them looked and worked the same, especially useful if you have elderly family members you need to teach how to use app for XYZ. all government websites (especially functional ones that citizens use to do something on) for instance should be exactly the same

Yeah, agreed. And realistically they are correct. I’d argue that “good enough” is how most things are done.

Especially if you’re working on an established product with an existing design system. New features / layouts are really easy now.

These tools don’t solve big design problems, but they do resolve all the little design decisions often left up to devs at implementation time.

In those cases you’ve seen firsthand, who is actually using Claude design (or similar tools) to create the good enough design?

The important point is that 2 years ago these AI tools were like 20% percentile for UX designers, today it is as good as a junior or normal UI UX Developer, 2 years from now it will be in 90th percentile, etc

But again: who is actually using/commanding the tool to create the designs?

Someone who is wearing more hats than they used to.

And then in 2 years after what, what will happen?

How do you check if you don't have any other view into the data but SQL and you don't know SQL?

Sql takes at most an afternoon to learn enough of to navigate a database with

Same way you do today; you trust whoever wrote the query.

I do not sell a wrapper on top of some LLM; you can absolutely write your SQL directly. There is an engine, there are iceberg tables. You can just live your best life doing your own SQL by hand.

Now if you couldnt do it before and you have a sensible understanding, you can likely do a bit more with the CLI tooling. And if you know a lot more, you can still do that. The queries are not hidden, or abstracted, If you need them they will be saved - transparently in SQL.

So I dont know what is the answer to the question "how do people do things they don't know how to do" ?

> So I dont know what is the answer to the question "how do people do things they don't know how to do" ?

The statue quo had been to learn SQL or ask a human you trust to check their own work, which hopefully you can reuse.

Now it's ask AIs that are intentionally a bit random, and less likely to (or incapable of) check(ing) their work. Perhaps without seeing the SQL at all, requiring to trust it for every interaction. And in a culture that moves so fast that there is no checking by any(one|thing).

No they don't. To be able to "check one's work", implies that they can be held accountable, that they can tell apart right from wrong, when in reality they're merely text predictors.

If you think an LLMs can check their work, then you are doing a terrible job at writing software. Plain and simple.

They even go as far as "cheating", so tests fail, writing incorrect tests, or straight out leaking code (lol) like the latest Claude Code blunder. Is this the tool the original comment "is using wrong, plain and simple"? Or do you have access to some other model that works in a wildly different way than generating text predictions?

you can have it write test cases though.

in this case to make a local copy of the db, fill it with a set of records with an expected output of the query, then check to see of the query produces what you want.

you could then have it make queries that check the various assumptions that went into that artificial set of data. if it can find the assumptions broken, add records like that to the test set.

same old agentic programming techniques as ever. use your engineering skill to set up feedback loops. stuff that was painful to do as an engineer for checking your work is now straightforward

The point is that you have verify it yourself. Like you wrote: "check to see of the query produces what you want"

Otherwise the LLM can just write tests against whatever it wrote and not what is expected. This happens often with the top models too.

Someone needs to check the tests work, review they cover edge cases etc.

Feedback loops require a deterministic metric for success. You are doing the equivalent of using a slot machine to decide whether something is right or wrong.

Maybe limit total number of transfers among all tickets. Because it should be a small minority of legit transfers.

Scalpers should be less likely to take a chance their transfer will be denied, whereas to a legit customer and friend ticket is otherwise worthless and just a best effort anyway.

Or beyond the first X% of transfers you do more rigorous validation. Like asking for the original buyer to call in to confirm in realtime. Something not easily automated.

Yes. Until the RSI sets in. Then you learn copy-paste, templating, abstracting and aliases real fast!

emerged?

What did folks in Argentina and Venezuela do before Bitcoin? Perhaps that's even better?

Decades ago, in my country it was illegal to hold dollar bills. Naturally, you couldn't have dollar bank accounts. What was done back then was to illegally keep bills inside bags, hidden, and pray god they weren't found because you would go to prison.

The alternative is not holding money yourself. Buy everything as soon as you can, and hoard physical goods, which is cumbersome, dangerous and inefficient. Bitcoin is an upgrade in all senses.

If Bitcoin were similarly illegal, would it still be an upgrade?

Yes. It will always be better than holding illegal bills.

I am talking about normal people who want to take money out of the country. if you own a shop you will know how to surf the hostile environment; they probably already have contacts.

If it's model is opened up and can run on commodity hardware. Otherwise price could go up as RAM and silicon prices climb.