> I’m happy to spend on supporting the poor worldwide; I’m just tired of the US playing team America world police. I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.
Then you should fix your laws. Like, until a year or two ago Medicare was forbidden from negotiating drug prices. Coupled with the absurdity of direct to consumer advertising of drugs (only allowed in the US and New Zealand), plus your massively complicated health care system, it's a recipe for disaster.
On the world police thing, I'm definitely sympathetic, but this was something your government did for a mix of selfish and altruistic reasons, and the consequences of not doing it will be bad in some ways for Americans. I do think that Europe/EU need to step up here, and it looks like we're finally doing this. I'd also note that of the current potential world police (US, Russia, China) you guys are the least worst.
> Ayurvedic and TCM largely refers to those things which haven't undergone clinical trials to understand their efficacy as prescribed medicines.
Interestingly enough, RCTs of acupuncture (with sham needles) show pretty large effect sizes for many treatments but only in China, which is super weird. The most likely explanation is that the blinding doesn't work (which is a perennial problem in basically all RCTs), but it's interesting nonetheless.
> How much space do you really need to raise a child?
It definitely depends on climate. I live in Ireland (in a relatively small house in the suburbs) and in the summer, there's absolutely no problem as we can take the kids out pretty regularly. However, in the winter when it's dark at 5pm and wet and windy, I definitely feel like we don't have enough space.
I do think the US houses seem absurdly large to me, but then lots of the more recent houses built in ireland are of a similar size.
Yeah, the cold would bother me less than the rain and darkness, tbh.
> for short stints.
This is the issue though, we have a 2.5 year old who's just super active, and it's much easier to tire him out when the weather is better and there's more light. Like, right now in Ireland it's still completely dark by 5.30 which means it's hard to tire him out in the winter.
> and we still have 3rd Places nearby, like community centers
That's cool, we have those too but they're mostly kid friendly in the mornings and afternoons and used for adult stuff in the evenings.
But there's a chicken and egg effect here in that the stock prices are low because of low investment and the stocks are bad because the stock prices are low.
For instance, Meta has basically doubled in price from a few years back but their business is basically identical. Doesn't seem very efficient to me, at least.
The whole section that introduces Zaphod is so apt for Trump. It talks about the president's position not being to concentrate power, but to distract attention FROM it. It really feels that way to me, anyway.
It's pretty funny. Europeans get so angry at US people claiming to have seen "Europe" when they've been in London, Paris and Rome, and yet they (we) do the same thing on lots of other topics.
> My naive approach would be to just implement it twice, once together with an LLM and once without, but that has obvious flaws, most obvious that the order which you do it with impacts the results too much.
You'd get a set of 10-15 projects, and a set of 10-15 developers. Then each developer would implement the solution with LLM assistance and without such assistance. You'd ensure that half the developers did LLM first, and the others traditional first.
You'd only be able to detect large statistical effects, but that would be a good start.
If it's just you then generate a list of potential projects and then flip a coin as to whether or not to use the LLM and record how long it takes along with a bunch of other metrics that make sense to you.
Which seems to indicate that there would be a suitable way for a single individual to be able to measure this by themselves, which is why I asked.
What you're talking about is a study and beyond the scope of a single person, and also doesn't give me the information I'd need about myself.
> If it's just you then generate a list of potential projects and then flip a coin as to whether or not to use the LLM and record how long it takes along with a bunch of other metrics that make sense to you.
That sounds like I can just go by "yeah, feels like I'm faster", which I thought exactly was parent wanted to avoid...
> That sounds like I can just go by "yeah, feels like I'm faster", which I thought exactly was parent wanted to avoid...
No it doesn't, but perhaps I assumed too much context. Like, you probably want to look up the Quantified Self movement, as they do lots of social science like research on themselves.
> Which seems to indicate that there would be a suitable way for a single individual to be able to measure this by themselves, which is why I asked.
I honestly think pick a metric you care about and then flip a coin to use an LLM or not is the best you're gonna get within the constraints.
> Like, you probably want to look up the Quantified Self movement, as they do lots of social science like research on themselves.
I guess I was looking for something bit more concrete, that one could apply themselves, which would answer the "if they have measured their results? [...] Can you provide data that objects this view" part of parents comment.
> then flip a coin to use an LLM or not is the best you're gonna get within the constraints.
Do you think trashb who made the initial question above would take the results of such evaluation and say "Yeah, that's good enough and answers my question"?
> I guess I was looking for something bit more concrete, that one could apply themselves, which would answer the "if they have measured their results? [...] Can you provide data that objects this view" part of parents comment.
This stuff is really, really hard. Social science is very difficult as there's a lot of variance in human ability/responses. Added to that is the variance surrounding setup and tool usage (claude code vs aider vs gemini vs codex etc).
Like, there's a good reason why social scientists try to use larger samples from a population, and get very nerdy with stratification et al. This stuff is difficult otherwise.
The gold standard (rather like the METR study) is multiple people with random assignment to tasks with a large enough sample of people/tasks that lots of the random variance gets averaged out.
On a 1 person sample level, it's almost impossible to get results as good as this. You can eliminate the person level variance (because it's just one person), but I think you'd need maybe 100 trials/tasks to get a good estimate.
Personally, that sounds really implausible, and even if you did accomplish this, I'd be sceptical of the results as one would expect a learning effect (getting better at both using LLM tools and side projects in general).
The simple answer here (to your original question) is no, you probably can't measure this yourself as you won't have enough data or enough controls around the collection of this data to make accurate estimates.
To get anywhere near a good estimate you'd need multiple developers and multiple tasks (and a set of people to rate the tasks such that the average difficulty remains constant.
Actually, I take that back. If you work somewhere with lots and lots of non-leetcode interview questions (take homes etc) you could probably do the study I suggested internally. If you were really interested in how this works for professional development, then you could randomise at the level of interviewee and track those that made it through and compare to output/reviews approx 1 year later.
But no, there's no quick and easy way to do this because the variance is way too high.
> Do you think trashb who made the initial question above would take the results of such evaluation and say "Yeah, that's good enough and answers my question"?
I actually think trashb would have been OK with my original study, but obviously that's just my opinion.
To wrap this up, what I was trying to say is that the feeling of being faster may not align with the reality. Even for people that have a good understanding of the matter it may be difficult to estimate. So I would say be skeptical of claims like this and try to somehow quantize it in a way that matters for the tasks you do. This is something managers of software projects have been trying to tackling for a while now.
There is no exact measurement in this case but you could get an idea by testing certain types of implementations. For example if you are finishing similar tasks on average 25% faster during a longer testing period with and without AI. Just the act of timing yourself doing tasks with or without AI may already give a crude indication of the difference.
You could also run a trail implementing coding tasks like leet code however you will introduce some kind of bias due to having done it previously. And additionally the tasks may not align with your daily activities.
A trail with multiple developers working on the same task pool with or without AI could lead to more substantial results but you won't be able to do that by yourself.
So there seems to be an shared underestanding how difficult "measure your results" would be in this case, so could we also agree that asking someone:
> I wonder if they have measured their results? [...] Can you provide data that objects this view, based on these (celebrity) developers or otherwise?
isn't really fair? Because not even you or I really know how to do so in a fair and reasonable manner, unless we start to involve trials with multiple developers and so on.
> isn't really fair? Because not even you or I really know how to do so in a fair and reasonable manner, unless we start to involve trials with multiple developers and so on.
I think in a small conversation like this, it's probably not entirely fair.
However, we're hearing similar things from much larger organisations who definitely have the resources to do studies like this, and yet there's very little decent work available.
In fact, lots of the time they are deliberately misleading people (25% of our code generated by AI being copilot/other autocomplete). Like, that 25% stat was probably true historically with JetBrains products and using any form of code generations (for protobufs et al) so it's wildly deceptive et al.
Primaries are kinda insane though. It basically means that a small minority of voters control who actually is allowed to stand for election under a party banner. Like, I understand how it ended up this way, but it's having really bad consequences.
That being said, if you could fix gerrymandering, a lot of the issues with primaries go away, as there would be more competition in the actual election which would dis-incentivise proposing extremist candidates in the primary.
> Out of curiosity since you made this claim and said you're european, where are the EU vents of frustration that the US lacks?
Proportional representation definitely helps here. You could look at the UK as a good counter-example, where the UKIP (a Brexit supporting party) got like 15% of the votes in the 2015 election, and no seats. Where people see that voting doesn't change anything, they'll look for some other way to effect change.
That being said, PR doesn't really appear to be working that well. I (personally) think that a lot of the issues relate to free flows of capital across the world, which leads businesses to be set up in areas of cheap labour, which makes people in developed countries angry and more likely to vote for anyone who'll promise to fix it (regardless of how insane their ideas are).
But it's complicated, monocausal explanations are typically deceptive.
With this logic doesn't the US have proportional representation as well? Didn't Trump win the popular vote and republicans the senate? The majority of voters won, end of story, and the ones who lost have another chance in 3 years to flip the board. Where exactly is the missing vent valve you were talking about?
>think that a lot of the issues relate to free flows of capital across the world, which leads businesses to be set up in areas of cheap labour, which makes people in developed countries angry and more likely to vote for anyone who'll promise to fix it
Well yeah that's the big issue, but nobody will win the elections by saying they are slaves of the capital class and doesn't matter who you vote for as they are powerless to change the crooked financial system that actually runs the world even if they win the elections since the finance systems globally connected and easily moves to the areas with most stability and tax benefits even if they are undemocratic.
No. The US has a first past the post system that naturally forms two parties which in turn fuels further polarization. A rep runs in a district and it's winner take all. In theory (totally unrealistic in practice) you could have a single party win all the seats by achieving 51% in each individual election. The other 49% of voters (ie approximately half of the country) wouldn't receive a single representative.
Proportional representation has advantages but comes with its own complexities. However there are also other voting systems (such as ranked) that offer different tradeoffs independent of proportional representation. There are a lot of options out there and pretty much all of them would be more functional than what we use in the US.
About the only thing our system has going for it is that someone with an IQ well below 100 can still fully understand and even help audit it. (Or at least that used to be the case before electronic voting machines started appearing.)
> Well yeah that's the big issue, but nobody will win the elections by saying they are slaves of the capital class and doesn't matter who you vote for as they are powerless to change the crooked financial system that actually runs the world even if they win the elections since the finance systems globally connected and easily moves to the areas with most stability and tax benefits even if they are undemocratic.
This is a political choice that has been made by governments, and continues to be supported by governments. It's definitely helpful for capital to make people believe that it's a law of nature but capital controls existed in the US until Nixon removed them, and much later in other places.
> Where exactly is the missing vent valve you were talking about?
So FPTP typically forces people into 2 parties because it's the only way to win enough power. So all the extremists (in terms of being far away from the centre of public opinion) basically have to join one of the two major parties and attempt to take them over, which is basically what Trump did with the Republicans and also what happened to the UK Conservative party post Brexit.
In a PR system, you'd end up with some compromise where the democratic socialists and the greens or MAGA or Libertarians held the balance of power in the house, and the Republicans and Democratic parties would need to negotiate with them on what they wanted to accomplish.
The benefit here would be that the voters of the smaller parties would get some of what they want, and the bigger parties would be forced to compromise with others rather than ruling all for the two years between mid-terms.
Worse, the controls that governments have over financial systems are being viewed as a model for what they should have over technology.
reply