tech industry has put way too low value on being cool people even act like what they imagine autistic people are like everything could be so much easier and smoother if this culture was corrected

can anyone ELI5 why software needs to be "maintained"? Like why do you need whole teams working on stuff that already works? Hardware doesn't work like this If it functions, it functions and does not need to be changed unless you're replacing something worn out.

Do you all realize how difficult this is?

AI has unchained people like me freedom from depending on people like this. Thank god.

Üniversiteden bir arkadaşım vardı. İnsanlara ilişki tavsiyesi vermekte inanılmaz iyiydi. Kim ne yaşasa gider ona anlatırdı. Hep sakin konuşurdu, doğru cümleleri bulurdu. Bir gün kafede oturuyorduk. Yan masadaki kız ağlayarak sevgilisinden bahsediyordu. Arkadaşım dönüp bana dedi ki: “Bir insanın seni sevip sevmediğini anlamak aslında zor değil. Seven insan net olur. Kararsız bırakmaz.” Bunu söylerken yüzünde tuhaf bir ifade vardı. Sanki cümleyi bana değil, kendine söylüyordu. Sonra telefonu masaya bıraktı. Ekranda sürekli aynı kişinin sohbeti açıktı. Mesaj aylar öncesinden kalmıştı:

Why Object Oriented Programming sucks.

It’s the correct move. The sun sets way too early in the winter. I will trade darker mornings for lighter nights. Can’t have it pitch black at 5pm

Statistically, life exists on at least one of these dots.

The REAL biohacks are unbelievably simple: Lift hard. Eat enough protein. Eat enough fiber. Manage calories. Repeat for years. That’s it. But that’s harder to monetize because it is simple but requires actual discipline.

Mr. President, Daylight Saving Time forces Americans to wake an hour earlier than Standard Time and does not create more daylight. Permanent Daylight Saving Time would make winter mornings dangerously dark, with some sunrises occurring as late as 9am. For the sake of public health, safety, and better sleep, please restore permanent Standard Time!

Hep savundum hep de savunmaya devam edicem sevgi her zaman iyileştirir.

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts. So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world. What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable. Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations. The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead. Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described. The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding. The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months. Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now. She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

companies hiring for exact stack matches instead of actual problem solvers is still such a broken game

RESTful APIs may be dead soon. Instead, web services may expose a single POST entry point for a prompt. Internally, an AI agent may decide how to interpret it and what to do with the data and the database.