Re:Solo – a .so loader for static Linux binaries
by egoisticalgoat on Wednesday August 19, 2026 @02:50AM
(#49357829)
> Obviously, this is an offense to me.
But why? You didn't write it. You said so yourself, you wrote the initial text but it was all reworded by claude.
Re:Solo – a .so loader for static Linux binaries
by matheusmoreira on Wednesday August 19, 2026 @03:05AM
(#49357960)
It's still his project you're insulting.
Re:Solo – a .so loader for static Linux binaries
by account42 on Wednesday August 19, 2026 @04:06AM
(#49358508)
Is it? In what sense?
Re:Solo – a .so loader for static Linux binaries
by matheusmoreira on Wednesday August 19, 2026 @04:11AM
(#49358542)
In the sense that he had the idea and iterated on it until it became something real that actually works.
Re:Solo – a .so loader for static Linux binaries
by funlang on Wednesday August 19, 2026 @04:33AM
(#49358715)
Agree. The work itself looks solid. Good job to the author.
Re:Solo – a .so loader for static Linux binaries
by pg83 on Wednesday August 19, 2026 @04:41AM
(#49358763)
Thanks a lot, guys!
Obviously, this is an offense to me.
> Telling me, a coder you never met or interacted with before, that I would introduce more bugs than The Product(tm) is pretty rude and prejudiced.
Don't exaggerate. I didn't say that you personally introduce more bugs (as you rightly pointed out, I don't know you and don't know how often you introduce bugs), I said that the average developer introduces more bugs than an SOTA LLM.