4 ms·

I think you are confusing machines with motors. Many machines do things that simply are not possible without. A bicycle, for example, is not at any less work th

I think you are confusing machines with motors. Many machines do things that simply are not possible without. A bicycle, for example, is not at any less work than walking, but it enables you to go faster than you can run. Menually operated sewing machines produce stitches that would be infeasible by hand. Motorising any of those machines could be considered lazy, though.

hk__2 3mo ago
> A bicycle, for example, is not at any less work than walking Of course it is, at equivalent distance.
- Ekaros 3mo ago
  Depending on speed of course. At some speeds drag will cause significantly more work.
  - deathanatos 3mo ago
    … I dunno. Bikes aren't just efficient, they're the most efficient form of human movement. 60 W gets you 3 mph walking or 9 mph biking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance On my own bike, I don't think there is a pace that isn't easier. Even at slow speeds, it's not a whole lot of work. (And you can always change to a gear where it just isn't a lot of work to go slow. The challenge is more remaining upright, but a low gear and the barest of forward momentum will help that.)
    - globular-toast 3mo ago
      Who cycles at less than 9mph? According to your link the average cycling speed in Copenhagen is 9.6mph so, according to your numbers, people are putting in more energy than they would with walking to go faster. Nobody cycles at walking speed because it saves energy.
- globular-toast 3mo ago
  I did not say anything about distance. I said cycling enables you to go faster than you could possibly travel without it (ie. faster than you can sprint). What you do with that speed is up to you, but most use it to get to places in less time or get further in the same amount of time. The point is it's not about laziness, it's about unlocking new capabilities. If cycling were just about laziness then you'd see people cycling at walking speed everywhere, which you never see. Since we're kinda talking about LLMs too, it's interesting to note that while cycling really does enable you to go faster than you can run, LLMs do not enable you to type at 1000 words per minute. LLMs are more like a teleport that only lets you describe your desired destination, you cannot simply enter a coordinate to get exactly where you want to go.
  - PotatoPrime 3mo ago
    This sorta scratched my brain - Isn't more speed, at least partially, laziness driven? There's a grocery about 1.5 miles from my house, and I can and do walk it, but when I don't want to commit all that time, I jump on my bike. I don't feel like I spend more energy on that trip when biking vs walking, but I may. The driver there, for me, is lesser time commitment to the task. Framed another way - Is laziness defined as only 'spending less energy on it', or could there also a time commitment component?
    - globular-toast 3mo ago
      Hmm... I guess I don't think saving time is laziness. I think that's clever. Laziness is a quality I don't like. It's not clever, it often ends up creating more problems down the line. Like leaving clutter everywhere or always taking the easy way at every turn without thinking ahead. Saving time by cycling isn't creating any problems, it's just cleverly using a machine to give you more time to do other things. The bicycle has been credited as being a part of the liberation of women. It gave them independence they didn't have before. They weren't just being lazy.
raincole 3mo ago
> A bicycle, for example, is not at any less work than walking What? Have you, uh, ridden a bicycle before...?
- globular-toast 3mo ago
  Thousands of miles on foot and tens of thousands on bicycle. Walking is essentially zero effort, so I don't see how cycling can really be easier, unless you are going downhill. People cycle because it's faster, not because it's easier. People drive because it's easier (many people still drive even if it takes longer than cycling).
  - hahahaa 3mo ago
    Cycling 2km flat (assume okay bike under 12kg) is easier than walking it. Source: have fibro so I really fell compound effort in every fibre.
  - monadgonad 3mo ago
    > People cycle because it's faster, not because it's easier That may be true, but the fact is that cycling is a more energy-efficient form of transport than walking. It takes literally less effort to go the same distance.
  - rightbyte 3mo ago
    There is no way bicycling is not less effort unless it is very hilly or bad roads? Random people have no problem keeping up with marathon runners on bikes.
  - lukan 3mo ago
    "Walking is essentially zero effort, so I don't see how cycling can really be easier, " When your bike is rolling also on flat ground, you have literally zero effort to move your position. With walking it is effort, your muscles must work for every meter you make.
deepsummer 3mo ago
But you could still arrive if you walk instead of using the bicycle. And I am sure you can do the same stitches by hand, it just takes forever. Same with coding agents. I could do it by hand. It just would take much longer. Often so long that it would be impractical.
- globular-toast 3mo ago
  You cannot walk 100 miles in a day, but anyone with a bit of training can cycle that in an afternoon. It's not a matter of effort or laziness, it's simply not possible. The stitching comment is just pedantic. People don't hand stitch like a machine not because they are lazy, it's because it's ineffective and impractical. It's not impossible to drive screws directly into softwood by hand, but you'd never get anything done that way. It's not lazy to choose another method, it's just being an effective worker. As for coding agents, it's clearly effective to write software without them because we have been doing it for decades so far. It still remains to be seen whether they are laziness (ie. it's just a motor) or if they are actually enabling new possibilities (ie. we get software that really wouldn't have been possible before).
  - deepsummer 3mo ago
    Can you write 10k LOC a day without a coding agent? It's the same issue. You can walk 100 miles. Just not in a day. And you can create 10k LOC without a coding agent. Just not in a day. I don't think that coding agents enable technical possibilities. They just allow things that wouldn't be economically possible without them.
    - skydhash 3mo ago
      > Can you write 10k LOC a day without a coding agent? Easily, by writing a code generator. Or disassemble a 1k C program. > They just allow things that wouldn't be economically possible without them. It’s not economical to have more code. It’s economical to have correct code and the way to do that is with the power of abstraction. Instead of dealings with opcodes, you have assemblers and macros. Then it’s C, next it’s python, and what would have been a 10k program is now just a few lines.

hk__2 3mo ago

> A bicycle, for example, is not at any less work than walking Of course it is, at equivalent distance.

Ekaros 3mo ago
Depending on speed of course. At some speeds drag will cause significantly more work.
- deathanatos 3mo ago
  … I dunno. Bikes aren't just efficient, they're the most efficient form of human movement. 60 W gets you 3 mph walking or 9 mph biking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance On my own bike, I don't think there is a pace that isn't easier. Even at slow speeds, it's not a whole lot of work. (And you can always change to a gear where it just isn't a lot of work to go slow. The challenge is more remaining upright, but a low gear and the barest of forward momentum will help that.)
  - globular-toast 3mo ago
    Who cycles at less than 9mph? According to your link the average cycling speed in Copenhagen is 9.6mph so, according to your numbers, people are putting in more energy than they would with walking to go faster. Nobody cycles at walking speed because it saves energy.
globular-toast 3mo ago
I did not say anything about distance. I said cycling enables you to go faster than you could possibly travel without it (ie. faster than you can sprint). What you do with that speed is up to you, but most use it to get to places in less time or get further in the same amount of time. The point is it's not about laziness, it's about unlocking new capabilities. If cycling were just about laziness then you'd see people cycling at walking speed everywhere, which you never see. Since we're kinda talking about LLMs too, it's interesting to note that while cycling really does enable you to go faster than you can run, LLMs do not enable you to type at 1000 words per minute. LLMs are more like a teleport that only lets you describe your desired destination, you cannot simply enter a coordinate to get exactly where you want to go.
- PotatoPrime 3mo ago
  This sorta scratched my brain - Isn't more speed, at least partially, laziness driven? There's a grocery about 1.5 miles from my house, and I can and do walk it, but when I don't want to commit all that time, I jump on my bike. I don't feel like I spend more energy on that trip when biking vs walking, but I may. The driver there, for me, is lesser time commitment to the task. Framed another way - Is laziness defined as only 'spending less energy on it', or could there also a time commitment component?
  - globular-toast 3mo ago
    Hmm... I guess I don't think saving time is laziness. I think that's clever. Laziness is a quality I don't like. It's not clever, it often ends up creating more problems down the line. Like leaving clutter everywhere or always taking the easy way at every turn without thinking ahead. Saving time by cycling isn't creating any problems, it's just cleverly using a machine to give you more time to do other things. The bicycle has been credited as being a part of the liberation of women. It gave them independence they didn't have before. They weren't just being lazy.

raincole 3mo ago

> A bicycle, for example, is not at any less work than walking What? Have you, uh, ridden a bicycle before...?

globular-toast 3mo ago
Thousands of miles on foot and tens of thousands on bicycle. Walking is essentially zero effort, so I don't see how cycling can really be easier, unless you are going downhill. People cycle because it's faster, not because it's easier. People drive because it's easier (many people still drive even if it takes longer than cycling).
- hahahaa 3mo ago
  Cycling 2km flat (assume okay bike under 12kg) is easier than walking it. Source: have fibro so I really fell compound effort in every fibre.
- monadgonad 3mo ago
  > People cycle because it's faster, not because it's easier That may be true, but the fact is that cycling is a more energy-efficient form of transport than walking. It takes literally less effort to go the same distance.
- rightbyte 3mo ago
  There is no way bicycling is not less effort unless it is very hilly or bad roads? Random people have no problem keeping up with marathon runners on bikes.
- lukan 3mo ago
  "Walking is essentially zero effort, so I don't see how cycling can really be easier, " When your bike is rolling also on flat ground, you have literally zero effort to move your position. With walking it is effort, your muscles must work for every meter you make.

deepsummer 3mo ago

But you could still arrive if you walk instead of using the bicycle. And I am sure you can do the same stitches by hand, it just takes forever. Same with coding agents. I could do it by hand. It just would take much longer. Often so long that it would be impractical.

globular-toast 3mo ago
You cannot walk 100 miles in a day, but anyone with a bit of training can cycle that in an afternoon. It's not a matter of effort or laziness, it's simply not possible. The stitching comment is just pedantic. People don't hand stitch like a machine not because they are lazy, it's because it's ineffective and impractical. It's not impossible to drive screws directly into softwood by hand, but you'd never get anything done that way. It's not lazy to choose another method, it's just being an effective worker. As for coding agents, it's clearly effective to write software without them because we have been doing it for decades so far. It still remains to be seen whether they are laziness (ie. it's just a motor) or if they are actually enabling new possibilities (ie. we get software that really wouldn't have been possible before).
- deepsummer 3mo ago
  Can you write 10k LOC a day without a coding agent? It's the same issue. You can walk 100 miles. Just not in a day. And you can create 10k LOC without a coding agent. Just not in a day. I don't think that coding agents enable technical possibilities. They just allow things that wouldn't be economically possible without them.
  - skydhash 3mo ago
    > Can you write 10k LOC a day without a coding agent? Easily, by writing a code generator. Or disassemble a 1k C program. > They just allow things that wouldn't be economically possible without them. It’s not economical to have more code. It’s economical to have correct code and the way to do that is with the power of abstraction. Instead of dealings with opcodes, you have assemblers and macros. Then it’s C, next it’s python, and what would have been a 10k program is now just a few lines.