If you're just doing STT and TTS why would you not do that locally and steam text?

Because local STT and TTS is not good enough and LLMs understand it much better?

Not sure what you mean. HTML is designed to be authored and edited by humans

Those cases were easy to fix by using eg htmltidy on the UGC.

Honestly I don't think it was killed by one thing, or by anything. Just no platform really cared and it wasn't a win for anyone and occasionally a loss.

To be fair, HTML5 also has a defined parsing algorithm. It just happens to always work on any input to produce a webpage

Yes, this is what you'd want. It doesn't have to be a complicated as the HTML5 algorithm either. That's complicated because it was a harmonization of at least 3 browser's multi-decade heuristics and untold terabytes of existing HTML practice. An algorithm unconcerned with backwards compatibility could much simpler, but still clearly define error behavior much easier to use than "scream and die".

And it's still unambiguous. You can cringe at what some people do, but it would be strictly a taste issue rather than a technical one, as the parse would still be unambiguous. And if you think you can fix taste issues with technical specification, well, you've already lost anyhow.

why for? the reply is about factual historical experience with webpage hard errors.

Would you like to have a law that forbids you, under penalty of fine, to read any book you buy or borrow that is lacking or has damaged pages?

I think the GP has an issue not with the specification part, but with the part where it's forbidden for clients to render a noncompliant page.

It's not forbidden. They just don't render certain noncompliant pages. Namely the ones with gross syntax errors.

Why are we okay with formats like PDF that have similarly catastrophic error handling?

I mean, we aren’t ok with that for PDF. That’s why PDF renderers have incredibly baroque rules for parsing weirdly or brokenly formatted documents, and why many PDF documents fall back to embedding images or absolute-positioned pixel-like layouts for compatibility purposes.

I mean, the linked page and the comment above say it is:

> It is explicitly forbidden for clients to accept any page that doesn't conform with the specification. This prevents the standardized diabolic rules that one must implement in order to correct a

You might be surprised how easy it is for some people to make 200K and end up in debt...

I think I'm just too opinionated to go there. If I see something that works fine, but isn't the way I'd do it, it doesn't matter if a human or an LLM wrote it I'm still in there making it match my vision.

This is the way. If you're a prick about quality and outcomes, whether you typed it with your digits or the robot spit it out is irrelevant.

What standard of result are you pursuing and are you willing to discipline yourself enough to achieve it?

AI can't make you un-lazy, no matter how many tokens you pay for.

100%. I don't think any senior programmer ever looks at another developer's code and says, "Oh yeah, that's just the way I'd do it."

But I assume you don't go and change all your co-workers code just because they didn't do it how you would have done it?

Even the most toxic places I've worked that kind of behavior would totally get you canned.

I concur, and I think that is one of the most difficult aspects of reviewing another's code. It's difficult for me to sometimes differentiate between what is acceptable vs. what I would have done. I have to be very conscious to not impose my ideals.

> So you are going to waste everyone's time getting another developer to write code the way you want?

No one is suggesting that.

That's not how most organizations work, AI or not.

What do you mean?

Organizations usually are not looking for employees who change things that work fine, just because it disagrees with the "vision" of one employee.

Sounds like he did format code, and even had opinions on how it should be formatted, but OP disagreed.

FIRE isn't about job market, you can't control that. Though in tech most people are still making quite large incomes which does help.

Rather it is about controlling expenses. The thing you can actually control. My sister's family of 5 lives on less than 50k CAD / year, because they simply must (low income) so if one is making a 100k white collar salary (for example) one can live a lifestyle higher than hers while still banking 50k/an. Etc.

That would not work well in the US with annual out of pocket healthcare expenses that can be up to $21.2k per year per family, or $10.6k per year for a single person.

Plus the monthly insurance premiums. Financial independence without a large sum of money does not make any sense, and a large sum of money comes from either inheritance, or income.

Obviously you need money and obviously you get it from income. But it is easier to reduce your expenses than to increase your income, and reduced expenses also result in excess income even with no income changes.

Yes there is a floor to this strategy. If you are going to the food bank to feed yourself because you don't have enough income you're unlikely to be able to reduce expenses enough to make this happen. But if you're lower-middle-class or above it is possible.

It's about controlling expenses after having a large income.

With a small income, everything goes on necessities. FIRE isn't possible.

FIRE is definitely about income just as much as it is about being frugal and saving. Having a high income is what enables the RE part.

There is a base level beyond which you can't save much, so first order of business is maximizing your income (e.g. better job/raise/promotion) without going bananas and sacrificing your health for it.

The first rule of not being seen: to not stand up.

Not stand out.

Yes talking to a human is good and necessary. But for diagnostics humans are not good at it. I'm happy for to human to use a tricorder and then tell me the answer.