Inflexible window layout. (For example, suppose you want to see breakpoints list, call stack, and find results simultaneously. You can't, as they all share the same panel. Which is always on the left of the window.)
I was struck by the "Magnitude: High | Applicability: High" bit. Who writes like this? More importantly, who reads like this? The V4 doc (which I have yet to read, but I did a text search) has 64 occurences of this sort of phrasing; not actually all that many, given that there's 293 pages, but enough to be interesting. I wonder if this extra stuff is there to make LLMs pay particular attention.
Intel's software optimization guides have similar annotations on many of their guidelines, and have done since long before LLMs were a thing. As a reader it's useful to know how impactful a given recommendation is and how generally applicable it is without having to read the more detailed explanations.
Ahh, interesting, thanks. (I read the reference manuals but typically ignore the rest... I don't need to write this stuff, just read it!) I've seen people recommend creating docs to be LLM-friendly and I was wondering if this was an instance of that.
But that is exactly what the flag button is there for?! - but this discussion has been had numerous times, and the two sides will never agree.
Safest to flag (or not) as you see fit, because you are a good person rather than an evil one. Then rely on the admins to rescue needlessly ultraflagged articles as appropriate. They are pretty good at doing the right thing.
You're saying the discussion of which chemical respirators to wear to protests has been had numerous times?
I'd say this is a productive topic of conversation for many HN users. There are not "two sides" on this topic, unless we're talking 3M vs MSA. The people flagging or commenting with opposing political views are disrupting conversation, likely because they they disagree with how the topic has been framed. This is exactly like PHP fans going into a Python thread and telling everyone Python sucks, disrupting the people who just wanted to discuss getting things done within the framework of Python. They might have some valid points, but they're not germane to civil discussion.
No, I was referring to discussion of the semantics of flagging. Apologies; I thought it was phrased clearly enough, but, perhaps not. (Maybe I should have said "that discussion" rather than "this discussion"? This is my native tongue, so you can't trust me to get this stuff perfectly right.)
Ah, I don't know that there was a problem with your phrasing. Rather it's that the meta-discussion of flagging is so inactionable that the possibility didn't even cross my mind. Mea culpa.
But the value Y could also be put towards hiring somebody else to do an additional job, giving somebody else a pay rise, or giving money to the shareholders.
In market dynamics, a worker becoming cheaper means that some employers will fight to hire/keep an employee on that surplus, thus driving the employment cost up for everybody else.
Yes, it probably would depend on positions and available talent, but overall and over a longer period, if applied universally to a market (say state like CA), it will be reasonable to expect salary increases (but not increase of how much is that worth because of increasing purchasing power, and increase in prices due to higher willingness to pay).
reply