funkattack
funkattack on Hacker News
When the bowel moves, let the mind move with it, and let nothing else abide.
It's a door opened by git (interpret-trailers), walked through by GitHub with the Co-authored-by key and UI support, GitLab followed.
Currently you'd read quite a lot of: "Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <
[email protected]>"
This is fundamentally a scaling problem, not a tooling problem. When AI generates PRs that no single person can fully grasp, the question isn't "how do we make reviewing 5,000 lines more comfortable" – it's "who is actually vouching for this code?"
The answer is already deeply embedded in Git's tooling: every commit carries both an author and a committer field. The author wrote the code, the committer is the person who put it into the codebase. With git blame you always know who is to blame – in both senses. In the age of AI-generated code, this distinction matters more than ever: the author might be an LLM, but the committer is the human who vouches for it.
Disclosure: non-native English speaker, used AI to help articulate these thoughts – the ideas are my own.
Non-native speaker here. I’ve always loved that we say “commit” not “upload” or “save”.
I mean, i love those kind of cli tools but in my current mood, instead looking for it on github, I'd probably ask an frontier model:
“Create a cross-platform CLI tool that scans multiple Git projects (grouped by category) and reports their status (clean, modified, ahead, error) based on a YAML config.”
Allways surprised how far this gets me. Most of my dotfiles now got created this way.
Current workflow that might stick:
I’m using SuperWhisper for voice dictation and casually chatting with Claude Code, which I just start in the Obsidian vault directory.
I’m currently onboarding into a new project and need to gather and structure information quickly.
So I just jot down whatever comes to mind — in natural language, no structure.
Claude takes care of organizing it: generating #tags, creating [[links]], and making things retrievable later.
After a couple of weeks, I can ask things like:
• What did I do yesterday?
• Who is “John Doe”?
• Which project uses Java version 21?
• …
Happy to share more if anyone’s curious.
(English reviewed with a bit of help from ChatGPT — non-native speaker here.)
I'd chip in doing laundry or dishes whilst on a boring call I'm forced to attend. Just don't forget to mute the mike on the headset.
Shouldn't forget to mention, not all titles are SFW.
The most important rule is rule number 4. Ships have to be placed bevor the first shot.
That is called the long tail, right?
In my book "credited appropriately" reads like, put the site down till you have done your homework!
Marriage is always easier than divorce. In those terms its a dark pattern too.
What I don't understand about the working remote discussion ist, that it only goes half way. It seems to be a discussion like: Lets work remote but keep everything else the same. Lets keep the company, lets keep bosses, lets collegues, lets keep meetings lets keep the chat at the coffee machine.
Working remotely, as I understand it, means, that you have to transform the company employer relationship in a way that it works using rather abstract or technical infrastructure or interface. The company has to know or to learn, and define, what kind of services or deliverable it can expect from its employees. Also the employee has to learn how to present his service or deliverables in a way that they get noticed and impress someone very far away.
It is sort of an bidirectional API that both have to serve and use.
My question now is, what is the reason for a company to have employees if the service they need is so well defined and could be offered by anyone capeable of serving that API? Why have employes if you can have contractors? The same question holds for the employees, if capable of offering that service in such a well defined way, why not turn into a company themselves and offer that service to anyone willing to pay?