I've taken to asking the engineers on my team to just share the original prompt, no judgement because its frustrating having to read through pages of AI generated technical documentation. Another approach is to feed the AI generated content into AI... who knows where this will end.

Wouldn't "the original prompt" be pages and pages of back and forth conversations? That's how I've use AI agents to make documentation.

While these advances are genuinely impressive, I'm curious when we will see practical implications for this work.

For example, will we see advances in material science, medical cures, etc?

Would love to read about some examples of practical impact.

And that's the crux. LLMs are the nuclear bomb, while AI is the fission. People refuse to stop building them even if they make things worse.

Close encounters with their own satellites

“The current 1,600 close passes include those between two Starlink satellites. Excluding these encounters, Starlink satellites approach other operators’ spacecraft 500 times every week.”

Seriously, this article reads like it was written and sponsored by Blue Origin.

Two starlink satellites colliding because of a bit more "move fast and break things" attitude than traditional space companies is still a disaster for everyone. Because you end up with debris that is unpredictable and dangerous to other satellites.

I'm sure Starlink tries their best, but I've also seen more than just this one article about how they're not always great at it.

so pr campaigns can be aggressive?

There is a reddit community all around this kind of approach:

http://www.reddit.com/r/juststart

However, as in all these things, the money is in selling the shovels.

Don't do this - the best way to evaluate is to compare the visual output with the auditory output, something you can't do if the screen is turned off.

The two practices are not mutually exclusive. Why not test against both?

I sort of agree, from my experience, I know what to expect when I see something, so seeing and hearing helps me quickly spot the issue.

This is an extremely risky business. It’s a simple concept - Google Sheets API to Firebase to App that we’ve used many times before, however Apple may decide to block these apps at any time as it has done in the past, eg see this article:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/apple-revises-its-controve...

Edit: And its broken with a Firebase error "Error : could not handle request".

i would hope apps like this are banned from the app store, too much auto generated garbaged. corporates can always use the enterprise app development program and that's who i think this is aimed at

How do you propose we send you a pm on HN?

hnchat.com?

There isn't any difference between a job for someone with a disability vs someone without a disability.

There are jobs where employers actively try to support disabled employees, and there are jobs that will grumblingly provide the bare minimum legally required by the ADA and then find some pretext to fire you (or to not hire you in the first place, if you admit your disability during the interview).

It's valuable to let companies in the first category identify themselves.

Totally, this is the whole idea. Companies who prefer people with disabilities and not just post some random stuff in their job description to justify "equal oppurtunity employers".

You guys are really awesome as I have got awesome support and people have literally answered the questions that I didnt have answers for. Thank you so much :)

There are jobs that someone with a disability can do just as well as someone without that disability. Likewise, there are jobs where that's not the case.

Many jobs involve physical labor which is inhibited by an array of disabilities.

For ycombinator to state “an error occurred in the software that triggers acceptance emails.” is extremely disrespectful. You seriously expect us to believe that? Since this is a hacker forum, please can you tell us exactly what this error is and why it occurred?

I think you misread the question - the question is about "user testing" not "QA Testing".