noun
One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.
One who deliberately hinders progress; one who obstructs business, as in a legislative body.
Someone who systematically obstructs the actions of others.
---
As I understand it, the tool the "obstructionists" built merely tracked teams/people being laid off.
How exactly does that block/interrupt the layoffs, hinder progress, or obstruct the actions of the executives? If anything it offers transparency that leadership was unwilling to provide.
> Employees should consider a job elsewhere if they’re “working against the direction of the company” and disagree with its mission.
Knowing which teams or individuals are affected does not seem to go against the direction of the company, unless they expect unquestioning obedience above all.
That's a false dichotomy, because transistors and ICs are manufactured to be deterministic and nearly perfect. LLMs can never be guaranteed to be like that.
Yes, some things are better when manufactured in highly automated ways (like computer chips), but their design has been thoroughly tested and before shipping the chips themselves go through lots of checks to make sure they are correct. LLM code is almost never treated that way today.
And therein lies the crux: some people love to craft each part themselves, whereas others love to orchestrate but not manufacture each part.
With LLMs and engineers often being forced by management to use them, everyone is pushed to become like the second group, even though it goes against their nature. The former group see the part as a means, whereas the latter view it as the end.
Some people love the craft itself and that is either taken away or hollowed out.
It's said that people have known about the fear of Satanism since the Middle Ages. How did ancient Satanists communicate? We all know that modern Satanists communicate through the dark web or things like Telegram and WhatsApp.
The easiest book that's not popsci but actual physics is Barton Zwiebach's "A First Course in String Theory".
It does not presuppose a background in QFT. It does require you to know quantum mechanics. Mind you, it's not as deep as the standard texts (Polchinski et al. or Kaku's work prior to going off the rails) or my favourite which is the two-volume "Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians". But it makes reading the others possible.
> The English-language jury also awarded Honorable Mentions to Ian Reppel and Helen Yetter-Chappell, recognizing their essays for originality, clarity, and thoughtful engagement with the year’s theme.
> I'm feeling a rather "HN moment"... I found out, because I'd submitted an essay for the 2025 Berggruen Prize Essay competition too (aiming for last place --- no delusions of grandeur here, no siree). They just announced the results, and I'd noticed "Reppel" last night on hnpwd. I'd also submitted my site for hnpwd. And here we are.
Least I can do --- terrific essay!
(And, mine's here: https://www.evalapply.org/posts - "A Consciousness is A Dedekind Cut" ... flight of fancy, but it was a lot of fun researching / thinking / writing.)
reply