Nobody was compared to the nazis, so Godwin's law is not yet relevant in this discussion.

I'm sure cooky old Martin Niemöller just dreamt that poem up out of nowhere and his time spent in in Dachau had nothing to do with it.

If my job devolves to reviewing AI code, I'm becoming a plumber.

Rewriting code to be more compact is orthogonal to productivity.

In a similar way to how a radial burn (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/44608/what-happens...) may be orthogonal to your trajectory but still may be necessary to avoid becoming a fireball in half an orbit's time.

How so? Let's say that over a year, a given section of code needs to be read and understood once a month. Taking some time to keep the code succinct and free of distraction will increase productivity all those occasions, as well as the rest of the lifetime of the system. Say the next decade.

How is that not efficient?

Which is not what is being discussed. Often rewriting code to make it more understandable makes everybody more productive.

Simplification usually requires the most effort and results in simple and elegant systems easy to understand and maintain with reduced error surface.

So overall increases productivity by a lot

you have evidently been blessed to work only in places with acceptable level of quality code and above.

Or he's the one bringing down quality and productivity.

non-coding manager spotted

Do you honestly think you're raising a novel point and not just being trite? If so, try reading Luther's Concerning Christian Liberty, where he dispenses with this argument. Or if you want a short version of what he says, if you just claim to "believe in" God but that doesn't affect your behavior in any way, then you don't really believe.

I'm certain I could not raise a novel theological perspective on Chrstianity even if I devoted my entire life to it. But from what I can tell, killing is not a black stain that precludes you from salvation. God is good, and He is forgiving.

OK, but part of repenting for something is genuine contrition, which is not really incompatible with knowing it's wrong but doing it anyway since you read that you can be forgiven.

You have to seek forgiveness and truly understand the nature of your transgression against your fellow man, not be like "welp, collateral damage is just part of the job."

Sure, I'd say that's a requisite for believing in Christ. But like I said, that belief can be sparked after what seems like any number of transgressions.

If you believe something, that will obviously have consequences on your actions, so there's obviously no inconsistency between the verse you quote and what he said.

Sure there is. They're a Christian, and think any action that causes death directly or indirectly condemns you to hell, and it's not given that you can repent. But scripture says belief in Christ will save your immortal soul, and that God is forgiving and merciful. That is not consistent with OPs views, who puts salvation as a "maybe" if you've caused death. If you find a genuine faith in Christ after the fact, you will be saved.

But scripture also says that many people will believe that they are holy and will be saved, and won't be, and this is one of Jesus's parables.

So it's far from clear. People who believe will have works, this is also something with scriptural support. So if you are doing harm, such as by killing people, you probably don't.

Neither the OP nor you give a reason for why that's bad. I want my child to have all possible advantages in life. I'm sure most people want that. Why shouldn't we select for that? I'm interested in hearing an argument that doesn't go into anti-abortion territory.

It's an anti-reproductive rights argument. You have to first accept the premise that a fetus is a person. Once you've done that, then the premise that a fetus is a person seems obvious.

There are a few reasons why it could be bad:

Access to the tech is probably unequal if it's done privately, which leads to polarization of society where rich people get even more opportunities than poor people. If you want equality of opportunity and an approximately meritocratic society then building a system to prejudice outcomes before kids are even born isn't ideal (although money and education already does this to an extent, those can be countered a bit by government policy; literally growing humans with genetic advantages can't.)

There's a world of potential for choosing foetuses based on criteria that are ethically catastrophic (no girls, no people who are 'impure', etc). You can argue that it's still parental choice even if the parents are terrible people, but normalizing the tech could be a disaster if a future fascist government gets into power. Imagine if the choice was removed from the parents and taken over by the state.

The foetus doesn't get a choice. This is straying very close to anti-abortion rhetoric admittedly, but if you believe that people should get a say in the outcome of their life, then aborting pregnancies based on a possible outcome that might not manifest for decades is very questionable. A baby that gets terminated because current medicine can't stop an aggressive cancer is having the opportunity to wait for medicine to improve taken away from them. Even ignoring the abortion side of things, you can question whether it's right to make that decision on their behalf.

Why not? Minecraft is the second most selling game of all time and comes with a freely distributable and hostable multiplayer component. How would this legislation have stopped that from happening?

>So now what, you need to show accounts to follow first

Youtube won't show you anything at all if you have a new account with watch history turned off. It says something like "turn on watch history and watch videos so we can recommend some for you".

The slop machine is stupidly easy to use. Recently switched jobs and got to use Claude Code for the first time. Literally just talk to it. There's nothing to learn.

How so? We already have digital ID in Norway. How does providing that information to American corporations further Norway's surveillance goals?

You review code not to verify the actual output of the code, but the code itself. For bugs, for maintainability. Commit hygiene is part of that.