Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bumby's commentslogin

>It's genuinely a simple task

Eh…like the saying goes “there are levels to this sh*t”

If you just want to play around as a hobbyist, sure, it can be treated as a simple task. But if you’re working on, say, space avionics it is much more detailed and complex.


If you’re wanting to get really serious, there are certification classes. For example, the “j standard” classes are pretty detailed.

https://www.protoexpress.com/blog/ipc-j-std-001-standard-sol...

There are some open source documents that can help you understand the difference between good and not-so-good work. Eg https://nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/06AA01BA


Even if machines could do it, it doesn’t mean they could do it at or below the equivalent cost.

I also disagree with the automation point regarding what humans should do. As we see with current AI, many creative tasks can be automated but it doesn’t make them unfulfilling human endeavors.


The idea that humans are only worth anything because they're cheaper than machines is a devastating, dehumanizing take.


I think that depends on your perspective of work, and what constitutes value of work.

Do you think all jobs of equal moral value? I think most people feel that some work is more "humanizing" than others


I’m curious where you get the estimate that humans hold “like four” parameters in their mind at once?


Cowan (2001) is an oft-cited paper proposing three to five "chunks" of capacity in human attention: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...

The full PDF is worth a read (Figure 1 may be of interest to many here): https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

If "attention is all you need" then it's something we do indeed lack, in comparison to LLMs! But it's an interesting question: might machine cognition benefit from similar bottlenecks in an attention algorithm? Advancements like Kimi Linear seem to indicate that we're far from the finish line: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26692


updated the comment. i meant four "concepts". i dont reason about my own thinking in terms of parameters.


What about charging people for electronic books? From an IP perspective, code is just a really bad book.


Agreed—electronic books should be free.


I don’t agree, but understand the sentiment.


A less cynical take is that sales connects the people who need a problem solved to the people who can solve it.


Modern sales pipelines don't behave this way in my experience.

A very common approach to sales nowadays is to invent a problem that someone does not have and then try to sell them your tool that fixes the problem

Or they try to map the problem you have to the problem they solve, even if they are actually quite different problems

The biggest problem that sales is trying to solve is that you aren't buying anything from them


Yeah, I see this. I think in that case, both the sales and development team are deadweight (ie self licking ice cream cones)


I think the development team's work in this scenario is more akin to basic research. There is still some chance they may discover something unexpected.


It’s not basic research in the vast, vast majority of business cases you’re describing. They aren’t Bell Labs doing novel work, they’re usually doing busy work on mundane apps. I’m not going to move our understanding of financial physics forward playing around with a social media or CRUD app. Hell, most work isn’t even testing a hypothesis other than “I hope this change doesn’t break shit”

It comes across as “everyone else’s work is trivial and low value but my, MY, work is difficult and important”. We shouldn’t be so precious.


sqlite came out of a CRUD app developer being unsatisfied with his database options


I took “basic research” to mean “fundamental research”. Sqlite is not fundamental research. It’s an exception that proves the rule. It was literally designed for a solving a specific problem. Somewhat ironically, it also comes from the industry that originated the term “self-licking ice cream cone”. An occasional useful offshoot doesn’t justify massive amounts of otherwise less useful busywork


Basic research is research done without an obvious application. In the same way, development can be done without an obvious application. All those mathematicians studying prime numbers in the 1600s-1800s came in useful later when we invented good cryptography.


Right. As you said, sqlite was developed to fill a specific need, therefore it’s applied research and not basic research. (I wouldn’t even consider it research, but more development, but I’m trying to be generous to the discussion)


Sales connects the pocket of the people who need a problem solved to the pocket of the people who invested on the company that promises to solve it.


Who convinces the pockets of the rich people that they have a problem to solve? Is that marketing?


As someone else mentioned, a software-oriented solution is likely to introduce more failure modes because of the number of dependencies, updates etc.


Updates? To an ESPHome device?


Isn’t that what they advertise as a “feature” on their website?


Is the fouling functionality more complicated than one would assume? From a naive perspective, it seems like it would just be a simple photo-eye sensor


You can make even more money if you make sure you have accurate data while your competitors do not.


Depends if the accuracy is counter to profit. Not to say governments don’t have their own biased incentives, but they tend to be of a different kind.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: