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

> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them.

This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.


It will help if your wall of text cost less tokens than theirs, they will run out before you do if you have the same company quota per person.

I'm not sure what the right vocabulary would be to describe this, but this sounds more like the calculations behind nuclear war than a healthy collegiality or cooperative work relationship. This sets up a competition to determine a loser based on resource scarcity, not a way to achieve mutual goals to advance the organization's goals.

You are thinking of "game theory" and it's what happens when your coworkers don't give a shit. And all it takes is one, both because they can degrade product quality faster than you can gate it or fix it and because the performance assessment techniques are about 3 years behind the state of LLMs and if they play, you have to also or you'll get shit on from such a height you won't even know what hit you.

And once you start playing the game, then one day - it doesn't take long - you wake up and ask yourself if this is how you want to spend 8 hours of your life monday through friday. I think a lot of us are saying no but now need to figure out where our money is going to come from. I don't have the answers.


“Token Standoff.” The most efficient token consumer wins. This mutually assured time efficiency destruction is driven by management support of aggressive use of AI in an attempt to, in some combination, increase productive and constrain labor costs.

AI isn’t making developers more productive – it’s making them busier - https://leaddev.com/ai/ai-isnt-making-developers-more-produc... - June 11th, 2026

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law


Mutually Assured Distraction.

Caveman consume fewest token win office token war.

When someone submits PRs fulky made by Clade any "cooperative work" is out the door

In a previous job, we had this saying "killing penguins" we used when referring to throwing more computing resources (more GNU/Linux instances) than necessary at a problem. In today's landscape of indiscriminate AI spending, I bet we could repurpose the term to mean "actually negatively impacting the arctic biodiversity".

We are all throwing penguins at each other.


Also, make sure your wall of text prompts Claude to be extra verbose to really burn through that quota of theirs.

Now I'm wondering how hard it'd be to zipbomb their context window?

(And _now_ I'm wondering how hard it'd be to forkbomb their agentic workflow?)


Try to automate the adversarial PR review-rebuttal loop "for productivity", so the back-and-forth between the AIs can run over night.

More like they will climb even higher on the lighting-dollars-on-fire leaderboard.

This is the point where you decide. It used to be low stakes and easy to care about the job you did for other people.

Do you want to put the same effort into your job when nobody else does, or should you reserve your thoughts and just feed it back into the LLM?

The LLMs are being advertised as output increasers but companies so far are using them as excuses to fire people instead of creating previously unbelievable things. It might be better to feed your coworkers output back in and use your thoughts to start the company you thought you never had time for.


What I don’t understand is what value is the person adding to this equation? Put another way, what’s the difference between them feeding the wall of text to the LLM, and you feeding the wall of text to the LLM, bypassing them in the process entirely?

The role of the person in the equation is to take personal responsibility for the proposed change and review the changes prior to PR submission. You can't put AI on a PIP. It's acceptable to use AI as a coding assistant in 2026, but if a human is not reviewing what they submit and taking responsibility, their value is on par with a ChatGPT subscription.

Peer review, in this case, “did you use AI to review your change and address its feedback”.

As a last resort, do the code-review with a live pair programming session.

If they can't explain their own code then it is by default a bad pull request.

At the end of the day, everyone's time is being wasted on tokens and on the increasing cognitive complexity of AI generated code.


So if they say "idk Claude did it", what would you write in the PR review box?

REJECTED: Engineer does not understand what they wrote.

Feels like the title of a blog post someone will write


If he did so much verification to prove it's right, why not just write it in the first place?

> Engineer does not understand what they wrote.

"""""wrote"""""


s/wrote/pushed/

The same as if they said it was copied from stack overflow, or if it’s wrong; “I think there’s a problem here, it’s XYZ”. If your peer ignores you and you were wrong, it was their call to make. If you were right - take it to them or the manager depending on how many times it’s happened.

A teammate that can't write (or at least, can't explain) "their own code"

Actively drags down the morale and productivity of their team (because everyone is getting flooded with AI slop PR's)

AND costs far too much money relative to everyone else doing actual work? (token usage)

By god they sound like management material


"Author of this pull request has not yet reviewed code and does not understand it. This PR was submitted prematurely, probably by accident.

Please, check whether you accidentally submitted other unreviewed code - and close such PRs for now and reopen once reviewed."


Don’t ever write this in a professional environment. It’s childish ant achieves nothing other than pissing off the person it’s targeted at and probably the manager who now has to deal with a shitty behaviour complaint.

It helps in that it offloads the code review burden you'd otherwise be doing.

I think most of the people who use the term in the context of Linux desktops don't know the term's origin (or at least don't stop to think about it), so the possibility of it being racist never occurs to them.


Doesn't it come from car culture? Where (mostly young) people put giant wings and shiny wheels on a clapped out Honda Civic to make it look like a race car. I always thought that "rice" was an intentional misspelling of "race" (as in "race car", which, hold on a minute, I guess would also make it race... ist?)



I don't remember the name of the software/protocol, but I once saw a demonstration of something that seemed similar to the Internet using amateur radios communicating with each other. I think they had either email or something functionally similar, but I was told that it didn't use Ethernet or IP at all (if I'm remembering correctly).

Edit: found it, it was TARPN https://tarpn.net/t/packet_radio_networking.html


> here's an archive from yesterday, for when that changes

GitLab's "internal" workings are surprisingly public, so you can just look at the git history yourself: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/content-sites/handbook/blob/ma...


What purpose do you have for NAT other than putting it where you should actually be putting a firewall?


Obfuscation. By inspecting packets coming from my network now you can tell what MAC addresses are in my network and also internal network topology. It's part of the reason your cell phone feels the need to randomize its MAC.


This concern is addressed in RFC 4941 (IPv6 privacy extensions).


> my network now you can tell what MAC addresses are in my network

only if you're using EUI-64, but I don't think many things use that anymore. I think the only thing is cisco shit. but even then I suspect that they have RFC7217 on by default at least.


Ok, now let's translate to Important Meeting Language:

"something ipv6 something something you may be vulnerable if you buy network gear from a normal vendor"

"Ok, let's not do that ipv6 thing"


Nah, that honor goes to Network Solutions. GoDaddy is definitely in 2nd place though.


So what does it mean, concretely? What repercussions will he personally suffer?


People will snark him 30% harder for a week.

I dunno what you expect, everyone wants to avoid the negative consequences of their actions, should we be surprised that the rich and powerful can actually do it?


No one is surprised, but why shouldn't it be called out and ridiculed as fake accountability and moral theater.


If you hire a house cleaner, and the house cleaner doesn't do a good job, would you fire yourself from the house? What repercussions will you personally suffer?


If I had a roommate who spent huge swaths of our monthly budget on house cleaning we didn't need, I might tell them to go find another place to live.

Or to stop stretching metaphors.. The investors should be mad that the layoffs were even necessary.


Yes, and being mad is not 0 or 1.

Investors are mad to a certain degree for a mishap, but then investors are also happy about something else.

To continue analogy, Zuck has made $10,000 for shareholders and had a mishap of $1000.

How much should Zuck be punished here? I don't have a good answer but it is certainly not firing himself for it.


But they were fine with the hiring in the first place. Making mistakes is allowed - it's worse to pretend like everything you did in the past was flawless.

Also, Zuck controls 61% of the vote for Meta. Investors knew that it was his show when they invested


Are you implying the 10% being fired are all bad workers? What if the house cleaner was not the problem here?


A closer analogy would be that you asked the house cleaner to clean the pool house when you actually needed the main house cleaned. The house cleaner recognized that you asked for the wrong area to be cleaned, but went ahead and did it anyway, but did a great job cleaning the wrong thing.

The cleaner isn't the problem with respect to the cleaning itself, but what about the culpability in exploiting someone who has lost their mind? In this case Zuckerberg is willing to accept the exploitation that occurred in the past simply for what it is, but now that he has had a moment of clarity he also cannot let it continue.


Ok, let's continue the analogy. The house cleaners weren't the problem. They are the best of the best at cleaning the pool.

You have the pool but now want to get rid of the pool.

You thought you liked the pool but you don't. It was your own mistake for wanting the pool and changing your mind.

Would you fire yourself from the house? You did make a mistake.


The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation", to the cleaners who's lives are impacted by this significantly more than yours.

> Would you fire yourself from the house?

You keep pushing this false framing/binary for some reason. You made a bad call, you lost the money, that's a given (a passive if you will). Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? That's the main critique.


> The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation" > Where's the active "taking responsibility" part?

But what is the implication of taking full responsibility? What actions would he be taking for "taking full responsibility"?

I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth.

Without actions, the words mean nothing.

So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? I don't quite get it.


> I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing.

100% agree, and that's precisely the critique towards Mark as those words presumably came out of his mouth.

> So, what would be the actions you were looking for here?

Claw back his executive compensation, forfeit bonuses for the fiscal year and use that to fund better severance / transition support? There's smarter people than me who can answer this, I am merely pointing out and ridiculing this fake accountability and moral theater.


> Claw back his executive compensation

This is actually very problematic that a company can claw back compensation that wasn't previously agreed upon (with the exception of crimes).

Companies could have put this clause in the job offer. Yet they don't. Why? Because no respectable person would have signed such contract.

You wouldn't sign such contract either.

> fund better severance / transition support?

To continue the analogy of the cleaners, you don't provide severance nor transition support either.

In FB, the severance of 4-month minimum seems good.

> Forfeit bonuses for the fiscal year

100% agree! If the company's or their performance is bad, they absolutely don't get bonuses. This is coded in their performance/compensation review criteria.

If your employee makes 10 successful things and fails 1 thing, how much would you punish that person? probably none.


It is irrelevant if the workers did a good job. They are at the service and discretion of the house. The house, i.e. the owner, always remains. Until everything burns down. In case of Meta, pipe-dream, one can only hope.


> My grandmother would often identify stitching on my slacks. I was, quite literally, blind to it!

I'm telling myself that this is an intentional "blind hem" joke.


Enterprises love Windows for the ability to centrally manage an entire fleet's configuration using Active Directory. Is there anything for Linux that comes close to that?


Ansible is what gets used for large Linux fleets for config management. It's not a 1:1 analog.


Univention Corporate Server.


> No custom tailoring, no AI guidance, no real automation. Just pre-populated forms that required you to click “save”.

I hate that I've become this cynical, but it's gotten to the point where reading the "no x, no y, just z" construct makes me assume that writing is AI generated (and then I immediately stop caring about reading it)


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

Search: