Re:macOS 26 breaks custom DNS settings including .internal
by brookst on Thursday March 19, 2026 @02:20PM
(#47443631)
Classic perfect/good.
The choice is not usually “have humans write amazing top notch documentation, or use an LLM”.
The choice is usually “have sparse, incomplete, out-of-date documentation… or use an LLM”.
Re:macOS 26 breaks custom DNS settings including .internal
by mort96 on Thursday March 19, 2026 @02:58PM
(#47444179)
And my claim is that the latter is better.
Re:macOS 26 breaks custom DNS settings including .internal
by brookst on Thursday March 19, 2026 @03:17PM
(#47444450)
Cool, so just ignore documentation then. Problem solved for everyone.
Re:macOS 26 breaks custom DNS settings including .internal
by mort96 on Thursday March 19, 2026 @06:13PM
(#47447052)
I dont see how that solves anything.
Re:macOS 26 breaks custom DNS settings including .internal
by dare944 on Thursday March 19, 2026 @10:40PM
(#47449787)
We wouldn't have these silly arguments?
Re:macOS 26 breaks custom DNS settings including .internal
by brookst on Tuesday March 24, 2026 @03:49PM
(#47508081)
* Projects can focus on code first, and do best-effort on docs for low cost
* Most of us get reasonable quality documentation, much better than what some poor developer would turn out in spare moments
* You are spared from the outrage of imperfect documentation
Re:macOS 26 breaks custom DNS settings including .internal
by mort96 on Friday March 20, 2026 @08:00AM
(#47453385)
Gah hopefully the meaning was clear from context, but I just realized I said "latter" when I meant "former". Inconsistent human documentation is better than miles upon miles of AI-slop documentation.
Plus, when someone wrote the documentation, I can ask the author about details and they'll probably know since they had enough domain expertise and knowledge of the code to explain anything that might be missing. I can't trust you to know anything about the code you had an AI generate and then had an AI write documentation for.
Then there's the accuracy issue. Any documentation can always be inaccurate and it can obviously get outdated with time, but at least with human-authored documentation, I can be confident that the content at some point matched a person's best understanding of the topic. With AI, no understanding is involved; it's just probabilistically generated text, we've all hopefully seen LLMs generate plausible-sounding but completely wrong text enough to somewhat doubt their output.