4 ms·

Luckily HN software developers, the foremost authority on literally every subject imaginable, are here to bless the world with their insights.

bonoboTP 7mo ago
I think there's an important distinction of smug better-knowing instances. "I have unique insight as a non-expert that all experts miss and the entire field is blind to" -> usually nonsense "I think in this specific instance academically qualified people are missing something that's obvious to me" -> often true.
- timr 7mo ago
  There’s also the possibility that some of us actually, you know…have subject-matter expertise.
  - refulgentis 7mo ago
    Doubtful, in your case, no? "Nanomolar" is a dissolved-species concentration unit. It doesn't apply to spectroscopic particle counting.
    - timr 7mo ago
      Uh, yeah. I know what the word means. See my response to the other comment where you say the same thing.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
refulgentis 7mo ago
Spiritual equivalent of a life sciences forum discovering memory safety, one person who wrote code for a bit saying they wrote a memory bug in C once, then someone clutching pearls about why all programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact. Been here 16 years, it's always an adventure seeing whether stuff like this falls into: A) Polite interest that doesn't turn into self-keyword-association B) Science journalism bad C) Can you believe no one else knows what they're doing. (A) almost never happens, has to avoid being top 10 on front page and/or be early morning/late night for North America and Europe. (i.e. most of the audience) (B) is reserved for physics and math. (C) is default leftover. Weekends are horrible because you'll get a "harshin' the vibe" penalty if you push back at all. People will pick at your link but not the main one and treat you like you're argumentative. (i.e. 'you're taking things too seriously' but a thoughtful person's version)
- david-gpu 7mo ago
  > Spiritual equivalent of a life sciences forum discovering memory safety, one person who wrote code for a bit saying they wrote a memory bug in C once, then someone clutching pearls about why programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact. I used to be a code monkey, I wrote systems software at megacorps, and still can't understand why so many programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact. So Poe's law applies here.
  - refulgentis 7mo ago
    That's the analogy working as intended: the answer to "why do programmers still write memory-unsafe code" is the same shape as "why do microplastics researchers still wear gloves." The real answer is boring and full of tradeoffs. The HN thread version skips to indignation: "they never thought of contamination so ipso facto all the research is suspect" (to go a bit further, in case it's confusing: both you and I agree on "why do people opt-in to memunsafe code in 2026? There’s no reason to" - yet, we also understand why Linux/Android/Windows/macOS/ffmpeg/ls aren't 100% $INSERT_MEM_SAFE_LANGUAGE yet, and in fact, most new written for them is memunsafe)
    - junofan 7mo ago
      You’re ignoring the article to grind your axe.
      - refulgentis 7mo ago
        What do you mean? (Genuinely seems you replied to wrong comment to me. What axe? What’s in the article that’s been ignored?)
        nineteen999 7mo ago
        They may have meant .exe
    - 7mo ago
Der_Einzige 7mo ago
You joke, but given that SWE/AI researchers literally invented AI that does everything else for them and is often super-human at intelligence across most things, I would unironically prefer the opinion of the creator of such a system over most others for most things.
- hnlmorg 7mo ago
  I cooked a steak yesterday therefore I am an expert in biology. Creating a user interface for the world’s knowledge doesn’t make the developer an expert on the knowledge that the interface holds in its database. Regardless of how sophisticated that interface might be.
  - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
    'I disagree, therefore I am an expert in skepticism.' The sword cuts both ways.
    - hnlmorg 7mo ago
      No it doesn’t. What you’re describing is an oxymoron.
      - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
        Please. You don't get special treatment for being a skeptic. Either you have the credentials or you don't. Prove you're qualified.
        hnlmorg 7mo ago
        You don’t need to be qualified to be unsure about something. Being unsure is a healthy position because it’s an acknowledgment that you don’t know something entirely. Which can also means you have an open mind to learn more about that subject. Being certain, on the other hand, requires an assumption that you are a subject expert. But this is all moot anyway because you’re constructing an elaborate strawman here. The original point was that the GP (possibly you?) trusts SWE more than others because they built AI. And I said building databases doesn’t make you smart at the subject loaded into the database. Really, this whole premise of SWEs assuming expertise on subjects they’ve trained AI on says more about the Dunning-Kruger effect than anything of value in our little tangent.

bonoboTP 7mo ago

I think there's an important distinction of smug better-knowing instances. "I have unique insight as a non-expert that all experts miss and the entire field is blind to" -> usually nonsense "I think in this specific instance academically qualified people are missing something that's obvious to me" -> often true.

timr 7mo ago
There’s also the possibility that some of us actually, you know…have subject-matter expertise.
- refulgentis 7mo ago
  Doubtful, in your case, no? "Nanomolar" is a dissolved-species concentration unit. It doesn't apply to spectroscopic particle counting.
  - timr 7mo ago
    Uh, yeah. I know what the word means. See my response to the other comment where you say the same thing.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

refulgentis 7mo ago

Spiritual equivalent of a life sciences forum discovering memory safety, one person who wrote code for a bit saying they wrote a memory bug in C once, then someone clutching pearls about why all programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact. Been here 16 years, it's always an adventure seeing whether stuff like this falls into: A) Polite interest that doesn't turn into self-keyword-association B) Science journalism bad C) Can you believe no one else knows what they're doing. (A) almost never happens, has to avoid being top 10 on front page and/or be early morning/late night for North America and Europe. (i.e. most of the audience) (B) is reserved for physics and math. (C) is default leftover. Weekends are horrible because you'll get a "harshin' the vibe" penalty if you push back at all. People will pick at your link but not the main one and treat you like you're argumentative. (i.e. 'you're taking things too seriously' but a thoughtful person's version)

david-gpu 7mo ago
> Spiritual equivalent of a life sciences forum discovering memory safety, one person who wrote code for a bit saying they wrote a memory bug in C once, then someone clutching pearls about why programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact. I used to be a code monkey, I wrote systems software at megacorps, and still can't understand why so many programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact. So Poe's law applies here.
- refulgentis 7mo ago
  That's the analogy working as intended: the answer to "why do programmers still write memory-unsafe code" is the same shape as "why do microplastics researchers still wear gloves." The real answer is boring and full of tradeoffs. The HN thread version skips to indignation: "they never thought of contamination so ipso facto all the research is suspect" (to go a bit further, in case it's confusing: both you and I agree on "why do people opt-in to memunsafe code in 2026? There’s no reason to" - yet, we also understand why Linux/Android/Windows/macOS/ffmpeg/ls aren't 100% $INSERT_MEM_SAFE_LANGUAGE yet, and in fact, most new written for them is memunsafe)
  - junofan 7mo ago
    You’re ignoring the article to grind your axe.
    - refulgentis 7mo ago
      What do you mean? (Genuinely seems you replied to wrong comment to me. What axe? What’s in the article that’s been ignored?)
      - nineteen999 7mo ago
        They may have meant .exe
  - 7mo ago

Der_Einzige 7mo ago

You joke, but given that SWE/AI researchers literally invented AI that does everything else for them and is often super-human at intelligence across most things, I would unironically prefer the opinion of the creator of such a system over most others for most things.

hnlmorg 7mo ago
I cooked a steak yesterday therefore I am an expert in biology. Creating a user interface for the world’s knowledge doesn’t make the developer an expert on the knowledge that the interface holds in its database. Regardless of how sophisticated that interface might be.
- kelseyfrog 7mo ago
  'I disagree, therefore I am an expert in skepticism.' The sword cuts both ways.
  - hnlmorg 7mo ago
    No it doesn’t. What you’re describing is an oxymoron.
    - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
      Please. You don't get special treatment for being a skeptic. Either you have the credentials or you don't. Prove you're qualified.
      - hnlmorg 7mo ago
        You don’t need to be qualified to be unsure about something. Being unsure is a healthy position because it’s an acknowledgment that you don’t know something entirely. Which can also means you have an open mind to learn more about that subject. Being certain, on the other hand, requires an assumption that you are a subject expert. But this is all moot anyway because you’re constructing an elaborate strawman here. The original point was that the GP (possibly you?) trusts SWE more than others because they built AI. And I said building databases doesn’t make you smart at the subject loaded into the database. Really, this whole premise of SWEs assuming expertise on subjects they’ve trained AI on says more about the Dunning-Kruger effect than anything of value in our little tangent.