kejdjejxjejdj

4 ms·

1.
by kejdjejxjejdj 26d ago
That’s not even close to a valid analogy and I think (and hope) you know that. Because if you don’t… oof. You have a lot to learn.
2.
by kejdjejxjejdj 26d ago
> I can only conclude Well, given that you are selfishly and arrogantly trying to set universal boundaries on what constitutes labour and effort, and what qualifies as “work” based on your feelings alone, then it seems fairly on brand
3.
by kejdjejxjejdj 26d ago
No, you did not make the pizza, but you have the wherewithal to order it, to think of what you wanted. You don’t get to claim you made the pizza, but you made the order for your pizza dinner. And honestly, if you have any experience at all
4.
by kejdjejxjejdj 26d ago
So planning, debugging, speccing, thinking, rethinking, designing, etc… do not count as labour? Please, do give me a list of what constitutes labour.
5.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
> it’s reading out your desired specs to a team member who does the actual engineering work Congratulations, you just discovered ”delegating”. I hope you don’t have anyone reporting to you at the moment because if this simple concept sou
6.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
> but yeah "labour of love"... tsk tsk tsk... What precludes this from being a labour of love, exactly?
7.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
> it feels hollow to me I don’t think there’s ever been a more accurate and appropriate moment to say: that sounds like a you problem. If you think computer science is only about manually writing lines of code yourself then goodness me
8.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
What do you even mean by this? Can’t things be made just for fun? Can’t people be proud of things they did for enjoyment only? How is displaying a project on your GitHub “vanity”? Why shouldn’t they display it proudly? Why shouldn’t they pu
9.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
Precisely! Anyone who knows the hardware should understand how interesting this project is, regardless of how it came to be. It’s just fun.
10.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
You either replied to the wrong comment or didn’t and proved my point exactly: some people like the technical low level approach, others prefer the higher level architectural work. There’s space for both and there’s a need for both.
11.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
> Instead I hear about the great time Claude had being prompted to do it. I don’t think anyone is talking or even considering how much fun Claude had coming up with the code for this. Fun is subjective. “A great time” is subjective. Th
12.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
Not all AI-assisted projects are AI-slop. The fact that you think so only tells me that you’re deeply insecure about your knowledge of a subject that you’re interested in.
13.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
I think you severely lack in domain knowledge if you think “nothing else than a bit of prompting went in to this”.
14.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
> But that brings me to the second half of the argument: I think we upvote this article in large part because of the historical association of a "crazy 8-bit software project" with "something that took perseverance and ski
15.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
> If the author didn't do this for themselves - to learn, to show off their skills - then why bring it to life? Why not? What if the person just wanted to see if it could be done and how it would look like, but wasn’t interested in
16.
by kejdjejxjejdj 27d ago
> If you've never done anything for yourself, usually with your own hands, you don't understand the pleasure and satisfaction that comes from doing it. That’s an absurd thing to say. Doesn’t matter what “AI” feels or doesn’t fe