I'm not sure if it's using your environment correctly, or are you expecting ~150 errors? Lots of import errors, and I'm guessing most of the other ones are errors because it couldn't infer what was imported.
Ty: 2.5 seconds, 1599 diagnostics, almost all of which are false positives
Pyright: 13.6 seconds, 10 errors, all of which are actually real errors
There's plenty of potential here, but Ty's type inference is just not as sophisticated as Pyright's at this time. That's not surprising given it hasn't even been released yet.
Whether Ty will still perform so much faster once all of Pyright's type inference abilities have been matched or implemented - well, that remains to be seen.
Pyright runs on Node, so I would expect it to be a little slower than Ty, but perhaps not by very much, since modern JS engines are already quite fast and perform within a factor of ~2-3x of Rust. That said, I'm rooting for Ty here, since even a 2-3x performance boost would be useful.
uvx mypy . 0.46s user 0.09s system 74% cpu 0.740 total
So ty is about 7x faster - but remember ty is still in development and may not catch the same errors / report false errors, so it's not a fair comparison yet.
Note that `uvx mypy` may give you inaccurate timings on macOS. The antivirus in macOS goes a little crazy the first time it executes a mypyc compiled program.
> But there is a feedback loop: If you change the incentive structures, people’s behaviors will certainly change, but subsequently so, too, will those incentive structures.
This is a good point, and somewhat subtle too. Something that worries me is the acceleration of the feedback loop. The Internet, social media, smartphones, and now generative AI are all things that changed how information is generated, consumed and distributed, and changing that affects the incentive structures and behaviors of the people interacting with that information.
But information is spread increasingly faster, in higher amounts and with higher noise, and so the incentives landscape keeps shifting continuously to keep up, without giving people time to adapt and develop immunity against the viral/parasitic memes that each landscape births.
And so the (meta)game keeps changing under our feet, increasingly accelerating towards chaos or, more worryingly, meta-stable ideologies that can survive the continuous bombardment of an adversarial memetic environment. I say worryingly, because most of those ideologies have to be, by definition, totalizing and highly hostile to anything outside of them.
The problem is quite the opposite: a large part of the incentive structure is effectively static. Our biological makeup hardly changes, so we're still drawn to all kinds of primitive things. Without strong cultural overrides we are sitting ducks, ready to be exploited by click and engagement bait.
With an analogy: Connecting an average human to social media is like connecting a Windows 95 machine to the internet.
> we were required to engage in 'reflexive practice', meaning at the end of the school day, we were expected to sit down and think about - reflect - on what had happened that day.
That is _reflective_ practice (which involves reflection). Reflexive otoh comes from 'reflex', which does suggest unthinking automaticity.
No, reflexive and reflective are synonyms; they are alternative forms of adjectives derived from the Latin verb flecto, flectere, flexi, flexum (note that both English spellings are present in the principal parts).
As bad as Merriam-Webster is, you might notice that 'characterised by habitual and unthinking behaviour' is the fourth, i.e., least common, definition offered, not the first.
Merriam-Webster uses historical order, not how common the meanings are [0], which makes more sense to me - I'm not entirely sure I've ever heard the "reflective" meaning for "reflexive". The "unthinking" meaning is definitely more common.
Words are fun, especially etymology! And students do respond well to enthusiasm for them, or at least appreciate it later. Thank you for that. My wife also teaches English and a foreign language so that’s a part of our life.
That said, how could you have read this and not understood the context for the definition used?! “The phrase “reflexive AI usage” is what triggered my strongest reaction. “Reflexive” suggests unthinking, automatic reliance.”
I thought it was fine to object that you liked the primary definition the most and had the strongest association with it.
Regardless of etymology, I believe the use of “reflexive” means something different in the article than “reflective.” The Shopify CEO isn’t describing insightful use of AI in coding. He is describing automatic, unthinking use of AI.
At least, that it was my understanding.
Everyone with an imagination is dead inside. Dead. Inside. But it's not so bad, they don't want to bite you, and there are a few living still out there; I reckon a couple of thousand in London. We recognise each-other and give a nod or a raise of the eyebrow, then back into the crowds of the undead stumbling along daydreaming about celebrity's dinners or whatever the fuck it is they find so compelling ...
There is a very big difference between engaging with your own stream of consciousness and being spoon-fed stimuli without any effortful engagement. While I get the sentiment that the parent comment may be snarkily over-generalizing (for the record, I don't think that it does), this retort doesn't land at all.
I disagree. The main point of this line is not about what to do _after_ a mistake (assign blame, punish, etc), but rather about setting up the correct incentives _before_ anything happens so that a mistake is less likely.
When you're accountable you suddenly have skin in the game, so you'll be more careful about whatever you're doing.
Right, I guessed this is what people had in mind. I'll note that this line of thinking typically doesn't get better results. It largely just gets more "red tape" so that you have to get people to sign off on things. And the person that shows up to do something will have all of their red tape in order so that they are not responsible for any damages that result from carrying out their job.
Agreed that personal responsibility is important and people should strive to it more. Disagree that accountability is the same thing, or that you can implement it by policy. Still more strongly disagreed that you should look for a technical solution to what is largely not a technical problem.
Reddit comments seem reasonable until they talk about something you're an expert on. Then you realize the "Reddit consensus" is worthless: uninformed at best, actively misleading at worst.
A corollary to this: people who don't have expertise in any field might never realize this, and will believe whatever Reddit (or HN, Twitter, etc) tells them that matches their previous-held beliefs.
I recommend people become technically proficient at at least one thing in their lives. It gives you an anchor to reality (you can easily recognize bullshit), and it will cure you of the illusion that most people know what they're talking about.
Even worse when you run into those folks who a surface level knowledge and sound knowledgeable but somehow come up with the worst possible conclusions.
yeah, for someone who wrote a book called "The Coding Career Handbook"[0], not being able to actually read the instructions, getting mad about it, and then posting a rant called "Home Assistant Voice Preview is an unusable mess"[1] is not a good look.
> These are not ads, rather something that is generated natively by the platform, not leading anywhere else but the platform that the user is already on
So if Instagram shows you ads about Meta AI, it doesn't count as ads because both are owned by Meta?
Yes, in my mind, just saying "ads" are more for like Nike or Hyundai, than for a service provider upselling its own products. But this point is technically valid, these are advertisements as well. Just not what I, or others, first think of when they read "Instagram is using my face on ads".
My point is, and I even edited the original comment so that it comes across better: "ads on instagram" implies third party ads much more, than fist party upsells. Another example is "Ads in Windows". The popup for OneDrive is much less egregious than Candy Crush, or tabloid news in the Start Menu. This is because, while the user asked for neither, some consent was already given for the first party, while no consent was given to the third party.
What you call an opinion is not my original point, and even if so, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Shouldn't I have expressed an opinion here?
I really don't see a difference between upsell and 3rd party ads.
I stopped using Evernote (was a paying subscriber) because I got annoyed by constantly having ads for their other services shoved in my face.
The user gave their picture to Meta AI in Instagram previously, and Meta AI and Instagram have the same parent company, and the user also encountered the advertisement on Instagram. This is as first party as it gets, in my Hacker News submissions. Maybe not in legal language.
I really do not understand why. Cloudflare only gave me a week to intervene and get counsel. I have asked them to delay. Everyone I've contacted law firm wise say they're not in a position to help. I've also contacted the EFF and they've provided recommendations to me who have turned out not to be able to help for various reasons. There's been a few on holiday, some say they've not got enough time, or too much work on.
Thanks I will contact them. I've lost count of how many organisations I've contacted. This lies with Cloudflare really to bat it back and say this isn't right.
Presumably for the same reason that publicly feminist lawyers are not in a position to defend accused rapists regardless of the strength of the accusation.
