I sadly have to agree with this. In a collaborative "give and take" world sharing is good. In an environment that takes only, all you have left is your own intellectual property. It is your own most vital asset worth protecting. Shouldn't be like this, but it is.
I'm talking about your personal knowledge base and your processes for getting stuff done, you take that with you when you leave and it belongs to you. Of course what you create belongs to your employer.
As a 3 year retired Systems Analyst I feel bad for my younger colleagues. In 2023 I was one of the first in my team to use AI to untangle some legacy code that did something mission critical with Perl and whose original author had long ago left and apparently didn't understand anything about actually commenting code or documentation. We were all in awe of this new technology that got us out of a bind. But more and more it looks less like a tool that is available to you instead of something that is being _done_ to you. Nobody asked for this.
At what point is inspiration and thought just devalued and worthless in the name of doing things instantly. The work has no soul.
Have you considered Linux on bare metal and a Windows VM for your coding? Two monitor setup and you can have Windows on one side when working then all your other daily stuff is in Linux. Shared drives and clipboards make things pretty easy.
Also just debloat the Windows install, why are you suffering with Co-Pilot? I have a VM running on Proxmox and I rdp to it from Linux when needed, but daily use, no way and honestly there really is no reason to put all your eggs in the Windows basket in this day and age.
The problem is that the genie is out of the bottle, even if you try to regulate it away it pops up in offshore jurisdictions and uses crypto. The ease with which polymarket can be manipulated is infinite because there are so many different random things you can bet on. It's a sign of our times and I don't think there is much that can be done about it by anyone.
This vastly increases the barrier to entry for the normal person though. Is your position that just because laws don't work 100% of the time we shouldn't bother with them?
But wow what a useless way of conversing that is. They asked because it's unclear what you're implying. So could you please clarify if you think regulation would be useful? Or should be done despite being futile? Or shouldn't be done? I can only think of those three answers, is there another?
I think smart policy would be a good start. I just made a comment on the sign of our times. I could have worded my one line reply better. I do think it will be difficult to regulate as I don't see a political appetite to do so. Maybe some countries will get it right.
For the record, I do agree with this perspective at least from an external observer of the US. Many places already regulate these types of gambling much better. What I mostly took issue with is what I read to be a resolute throwing up of the hands of any action being useless.
It is indeed unfortunate that the level of corruption in the current US administration likely precludes any action on it in the current term.
Bans from the AppStores will go a long way to removing this behavior.
Sure a few die hards will always find a way to gamble, that does not mean we should not have regulations for the majority.
> It's a sign of our times and I don't think there is much that can be done about it by anyone.
Isn't cryptocurrency (for the most part) very traceable? If you make it too hard and risky for most people to participate in, you'll limit the negative effects. You could probably quite effectively discourage it by sanctioning any transactions with one of these markets, you've got some opportunity because at some point the cryptocurrency needs to be converted to/from cash.
Of course, you'd have to dedicate some investigative and enforcement resources to the effort.
If to bet on a prediction market you have to both use a VPN and launder your money like you're a drug dealer, and I don't think many people would do it.
> Isn't cryptocurrency (for the most part) very traceable
Mostly no. If you're connected it to a banking account, or other KYC platform, maybe, but the folks capable of doing that are part of the same administration supposedly doing the manipulation, so they would not investigate themselves.
Indeed, they are actually fighting against those trying to regulate it [0]
Indeed, the president's son works for Polymarket, and has invested in it [1]
>> Isn't cryptocurrency (for the most part) very traceable
> Mostly no. If you're connected it to a banking account, or other KYC platform, maybe,
But if you're (say) and American betting on it, the money almost certainly flows through one of those entities. And if you're using bitcoin the ledger is totally public, so you could track it from Coinbase (KYC) to whatever wallet the prediction market is using to accept payment (or vice versa).
> Indeed, they are actually fighting against those trying to regulate it [0]
Choosing to "do something about it" or not is a different question than can something be done at all. I was addressing the latter.
How can I, an ordinary person, track it from Coinbase (KYC) to whatever wallet the prediction market is using to accept payment (or vice versa)." in order to link a real identity to a prediction market identity?
I don't have access to that. The government which has access to that is the very government making money doing this, so would not investigate itself.
If your question was purely technical, the answer is maybe, depending on the exchange flow. e.g. Maybe it was exchanged through Monero along the way or something, then the answer might be closer to "no".
> How can I, an ordinary person, track it from Coinbase (KYC) to whatever wallet the prediction market is using to accept payment (or vice versa)." in order to link a real identity to a prediction market identity?
KYC data is certainly confidential.
> The government which has access to that is the very government making money doing this, so would not investigate itself.
I'm not obsessed with the Trump administration, so let's not make everything about them, OK? There are other governments in the world and there will be other administrations in the US in the future. I would like to talk about prediction markets in general.
Again, if your question was purely technical, the answer is "maybe", depending on the exchange flow. e.g. Maybe it was exchanged through Monero along the way or something, then the answer might be closer to "no".
If your question was asking about a practical, realistic possibility of this being done, then your weird fixation on the trump administration aside, the answer is "no".
We seem to be seeing the repetition of every stock/securities fraud that led to the creation of the SEC. But we're seeing people who refuse to let any reasonable regulation to happen.
My biggest worry isn't that it will make me dumb (it won't), or that it will make me lazy (it will), but that people raised with it wont learn things in the first place. I'm split on if this is a real issue or an old man rants about slide rules and the decline of mental math kinda situation.
Sometimes people open issues without proper information. It cant be replicated and nobody else is jumping in that it affects them. You may suspect its something else, maybe with their environment, but if they don't engage what else can you do? Tell them you are closing it and specify what kind of info you need if they ever get around to providing it and it can be reopened.
"Unable to reproduce" is a fair enough explicit close reason. This is more about those "stale" bots that exist that just kinda close the issues because there hasn't been any response for X days. The annoyance with the practice usually stems from the fact that many of the victims of this comes from a lack of maintainer response.
This sort of bot punishes users for making even valid reports that aren't fixed immediately or missed by the maintainers for whatever reason including transitory ones, etc.
Constantly bumping threads/issues/whatever is generally considered rude, so this is why issue reporters generally don't do it, plus generally the reporter isn't solely focused on that particular issue
And sometimes the maintainer simply doesn't respond to a perfectly acceptable issue due to either the maintainer abandoning the project, not enough maintainers or simple neglect.
If you have failover redundancy of services across your systems of some kind to mitigate then great. With proper setup no worries. I guess it depends how much you want to take on vs hand off.
Serious question about using Claude for coding. I maintain a couple of small opensource applications written in python that I created back in 2014/2015. I have used Claude Code to improve one of my projects with features I have wanted for a long time but never really had the time to do. The only way I felt comfortable using Claude Code was holding its hand through every step, doing test driven changes and manually reviewing the code afterwards. Even on small code bases it makes a lot of mistakes. There no way I would just tell it to go wild without even understanding what they are doing and I can't help but think that massive code bases that have moved to vibe coding are going to spend inordinate amounts of time testing and auditing code, or at worst just ship often and fix later.
I am just an amateur hobbyist, but I was dumbfounded how quickly I can create small applications. Humans are lazy though and I can't help but feel we are being inundated with sketchy apps doing all kinds of things the authors don't even understand. I am not anti AI or anything, I use it and want to be comfortable with it, but something just feels off. It's too easy to hand the keys over to Claude and not fully disclose to others whats going on. I feel like the lack of transparency leads to suspicion when anyone talks about this or that app they created, you have to automatically assume its AI and there is a good chance they have no clue what they created.
> Humans are lazy though and I can't help but feel we are being inundated with sketchy apps doing all kinds of things the authors don't even understand... there is a good chance they have no clue what they created.
I have bad news for you about the executives and salespeople who manage and sell fully-human-coded enterprise software (and about the actual quality of much of that software)...
I think people who aren't working in IT get very hung up on the bugs (which are very real), but don't understand that 99% of companies are not and never have met their patching and bugfix SLAs, are not operating according to their security policies, are not disclosing the vulns they do know, etc etc.
All the testing that does need to happen to AI code, also needs to happen to human code. The companies that yolo AI code out there, would be doing the same with human code. They don't suddenly stop (or start) applying proper code review and quality gating controls based on who coded something.
> The only way I felt comfortable using Claude Code was holding its hand through every step, doing test driven changes and manually reviewing the code afterwards.
This is also how we code 'real' software.
> I can't help but think that massive code bases that have moved to vibe coding are going to spend inordinate amounts of time testing and auditing code
This is the correct expectation, not a mistake. The code should be being reviewed and audited. It's not a failure if you're getting the same final quality through a different time allocation during the process, simply a different process.
The danger is Capitalism incentivizing not doing the proper reviews, but once again, this is not remotely unique to AI code; this is what 99% of companies are already doing.
If you're not doing code review, you're not doing code review. If you're not gating builds on code review, you're not doing code review. If your developers are lazy and just approve the PRs as they land, you're not doing code review.
If you're thinking there is some magical line where LOC < n gets properly reviewed, but LOC > n doesn't, I assure you that's not the case.
And no one is turning off their approval gates in their build pipeline just to accommodate AI code.
Everyone is using AI, so nothing to be ashamed about. Is better to be open about it and add a disclaimer about how it was used.
Even if it's vibe coded as long as you are open about it there's nothing wrong, it's open source and free if someone doesn't like it can just go write it themselves.
Interestingly, I started coding with Claude a couple weeks ago (with my only other experience being vbcode 20 years ago) and it's been surprisingly good at starting code from scratch but as soon as the code gets a little complex it takes a lot of tokens to make a simple change which makes it somewhat impractical for all but the most basic applications. That said, I'm not referring to objects by inspecting the code and asking for changes to certain lines, I'm saying "In the results bar, change the title of the result to a clickable link that directs to X." which may require a little translation before Claude picks up on what I want. Even so, I was able to build a somewhat usable application within a week (minus a few bugs).
It makes sense that CC uses more tokens on bigger and complex code bases. And I'm happy it does; because of that it gets a good understanding of the architecture and how to properly solve the issue. And yeah for that you need at least a 5x plan.
reply