jagadaga

Contractual commitments are not equivalent to debt.

Just learn to like it.

  > How will LLMs "do it for you" if you don't tell them what you want / need?

You tell them what you want, yes. You just won't need to be a software engineer to do it.

  > shipping fast isn't the same thing as shipping what is good, neccessary, helpful, or profitable

LLMs will warn you if something isn't good, helpful, or profitable, etc.

  > But shipping more and / or faster is not the solution. I'm not even sure what the problem it's trying to solve would be.

There are plenty of ideas in the world to implement. Current software development is slow and expensive. That's a real problem, and LLMs are helping solve it.

  > For example, the ability to write, think and communicate clearly, both with LLMs and humans seems likely to be much more important in the future.

No, LLMs will do it for you.

  > Some business folks look at AI and say “Great, we don’t need programmers!”, but it seems just as plausible to me that a programmer might say “Great, we don’t need business people!”

We won't need either.

  > I think software architecture will become a more important skill over time: the ability to organize large software systems effectively and, crucially, to control the complexity of those systems.

No, LLMs will do it. It's no harder than solving complex math problems, so why wouldn't they?

  > I try not to use LLMs to generate full solutions that I am going to need to support. I will sometimes use LLMs alongside my manual coding as I build out a solution to help me understand APIs and my options while coding.
  > I never let LLMs design the APIs to the systems I am building.

Then you'll be left behind by those who do, because they'll ship faster. And surprise, the quality won't be any worse than yours.

It's over. Accept it.

I don't think it's possible to be conscious and have no thoughts at the same time. Otherwise, you wouldn't even remember the experience. I think we first need to define what we mean by "thoughts".

IMO, a more logical approach is to let your thoughts flow and simply observe them instead of trying to control them (that never worked for me.)

So, instead of solving problems, you want them to solve the problem of not thinking about solving problems?

  > By “don’t do anything,” I mean don’t move, don’t fidget, don’t indulge any thoughts or daydreams.

Keeping all these rules in your head is also a thought, no?

Sorry, the text is too vague - what are they building exactly, another tmux?

P.S. That custom disappearing scrollbar doesn't look super logical; it doesn't even look logical, tbh.

"China is bad"? I don't know, man. I'm not buying it.

Do you understand every line of code written by everyone else on your team? I doubt it. But if you ever need to work with their code, that's when you might need to understand it. So, treat an AI agent like another teammate.

I think a wiser approach for crossing a border might be to have another phone with regular Android installed on it, so it doesn't look suspicious, and then connect remotely to your main phone. Before crossing the border, you would just need to remove the remote-connection app, and after crossing, install it again.

  > Why spend years mastering language intricacies when an AI can generate code in any language on demand?

You can learn relatively well any programming language in a week. You don't need to master "language intricacies".

Yeah, I agree, it's really stupid. It's like discussing whether contributors are allowed to use google search, stackoverflow, an encyclopedia, etc.

Claude Code gives you more control - you can disable auto-memory temporarily (nothing will be deleted), then enable it back; or you can setup a directory where auto-memory is disabled and do your throwaway there.

And I am going to do nothing. Works fine.

Good to know, but looks less readable than `if` example.

    > result types pessimize code more

What does it mean?

    > They're arguably noisier at the source level too.

But they are more explicit, which means there will be fewer bugs in your code.

In theory, a compiler can figure out that you don't need that in some cases.

No problem. I love you.

My gut feeling is that OpenAI tells the truth in this particular case. Yes, of course, they use this story for marketing but it doesn't mean that they are lying.

>I've long faulted Rust's use of Result over exceptions

Why?

I watched 8 minutes and feel like my time was wasted. Thank you. Yeah, we always knew how to build reliable software, but it's expensive.

Another article from that substack.com - this website has terrible UI, please stop using it. And I noticed that usually if an author uses substack - the article quality is bad.

Regarding the topic - "more brain activity/connectivity" does not automatically prove better long-term intelligence or brain health.

Looks terrible on my machine. Something wrong with the font. And button press animation is too slow and annoying.