mihaic

I have no idea how Jetbrains are dropping the ball so hard now with agentic coding.

I still use their IDE, but I would love to see a realy native view on Claude Code, that actually shows a preview of an image I pasted for instance, in a view that feels native to the IDE.

It's not really clear to me what's so (figuratively) groundbreaking about this, especially given that Catalhuyuk already shows similar care for the dead not much later.

My general gripe with results like this is that it seems to be interpreted in a biased way by the people that already use psychoactive drugs, who want to argue for them in the modern world.

I do agree that drugs were often needed for people to ensure the hardships of civilization (alcohol is not just a disinfectant). My main problem though is that this is too often used as an argument to shove a bunch of drugs in the general population, when we maybe could achieve some better results by just improving society.

The people that take psylocibin/mescalin/whatever always tell other how much it expanded their mind, yet often they seem just as narrow minded to me as they did before, just in a different way

I would like that, inside a powerful IDE like the Jetbrains ones though.

> We are users.

In a dual role, I would say that the most impactful aspect (being a developer) matters more.

> Nobody writes a WYSIWYG word processor in a TUI.

But at the same time people write all sorts of other apps that could hugely benefit from a GUI. I seems like if the output itself is not graphical, TUI-enthusiasts won't acknowledge the advantages of a GUI layer, while only bringing in arguments why they can implemented poorly.

GUIs have a much higher surface to be done wrong, so standards are higher. But there's still a decision that needs to be weighed carefully, and many developers seems to simply jump on the TUI bandwagon just because it's easier.

I don't get your argument. Can't you separate your input box from your execution engine?

The people that keep arguing for TUIs for everything seem like religious fundamentalists that can't be convinced with any argument that user interfaces should be about the user, and need to adapt to the task at hand.

Every time I use Claude Code, I'm wondering why the hell I'm regressing to the level of a machine. I paste an image that I want fixed, and I don't see the preview of it. I can't cut or edit text somewhere in the middle of a long sentence like in a normal user interface. I can't visualize any helpful graphics, not even Latex. I'm forced to interface like a machine when I'm a human being.

Why can't developers understanding that GUIs and TUIs both have their usage, it just depends on the task?

I'm fine to use vim over ssh into a server, just don't force me to edit fine typography with it.

As a person who has actually helped friends with depression, I can totally understand on the other hand where Karrot_Kream is coming from.

I think he wrote enough for an internet comment, and anyone should probably ask for more context instead of jumping to a negative conclusion.

Maybe I'm projecting a preference for something that humans have always done. But are you sure you're not trying to normalize your own unnatural preference?

I'm sorry, but this is like saying "online sex is real sex". I'm sure some people can get the same stimulation, but it very much isn't the same.

Humans need other humans, in flesh and blood in front of them. Bonding needs a physical presence. That's the only way our social processes have evolved.

Given the sociability crisis and how having online friends can still have benefits, it's fine to paint them as something good, but they shouldn't be mistaken for the real thing, and this sort of ideas hide away our unnatural modern lifestyle.

I made a Gmail account in 2004. I'm still periodically asked for my birthday, just so Google knows I'm over 18. The stated purpose is almost always an excuse for more data.

Why Bertha von Suttner and not someone like Dag Hammarskjold for instance? Why not my grandmother? She brokered peace between all our neighbours.

When you propose someone, the burden of proof is on you to say why that specific option should be chosen, instead of anything else possible.

The people choosing these banknotes put their office buildings on the money. They also seemed to have a gender quota, and have put on the 200 euro someone who is unknown to most Europeans (Marie Curie and Maria Callas were popular on the other hand).

Honestly, I enjoy plenty of benefits from the EU, but this non-representative style of decision-making makes me understand the EU-haters.

I have a feeling that being transgressive is universal, but the form of expression is cultural, with independent convergence to some common patterns.

For instance, in Romania I've noticed that the slang term for penis is written far more frequently than a crude drawing of it. I've also seen probably more drawn breasts than dicks as well.

You're basically saying that since open source projects can be reused by others, the people making closed source projects shouldn't complain when the same thing happens to them.

Everyone posting on Stack Overflow knew it would be public and free. Book authors put an explicit copyright notice, which includes derivations of their work.

The paradox is that their IP was obtained by distillation of the collective IP of humanity.

Romanian here. There really were admin accounts with the password Passw0rd, created so that some incompetent political apointees could browse the data.

How is this not gambling? I mean, any mobster bookie could simply claim prediction market in this case, and simply take a cut. Where is the line drawn? On how much money the organizers give to the Trump family?

I think I've known about him for 20 years right now, ever since I discovered his code to compute pi to an ungodly amount of digits. The man sure was prolific.

Interesting counterpoint. I think this is the Peter principle in software: a lot of people are great at prototyping, but not great at the next stages of the project. Other people step in for those, but their existence is mostly ignored, since they can't easily fit inside a narrative.

One think to note though is unelected dictators do have their benefits, even if they come with obvious downsides.

Yes, if it's done with an intent to defraud the general population, which could be the case here. Effects and intent really matter when deciding actions.

You're just repeating that your purpose is your message. Do you honestly not see a qualitative difference between the understanding of ants and of humans of the world around them? Heck, even ants and dogs or cats?

Yes, but we have a system to understand the universe and ants don't. Using relativism, to simply destroy point of view without putting anything in their place, is simply destructive without any purpose.

I've learned SQL around 20 years ago, and in all this time I've felt it was just a poorly designed language. It was always infuriating to write because of its verbose nature. Keywords were split into two words. I'm still shocked it's not "GROUPBY". There is no composition and modularization of logic, queries become massive expressions.

I know I'm in the minority in places like this, but I've spent all my life using ORMs, and never once regretted it. And I'm the kind of person that actually likes low-level C from time to time. SQL just feels like a poor abstraction layer: either go higher or lower.

Vaguely related, am I the only one that is getting Rosalind Franklin fatigue?

I don't have anything against her, but she's become sort of symbol of signaling inclusiveness and hipness in science. Especially since her assistant Raymond Gosling also gets the same real dismissal in the story of DNA that she's reported to have received.

Sure, I've been a start-up founder before, I know the trap of "if you build it, they will come". It's just that AI is evolving so fast that book do seem like the market for vinyl (as the article said).

No amount of marketing can help you out is your entire market is shrinking daily. Shriking markets are also not won by quality. The more competition, the more marketing then becomes the main thing, and you also need to alter the book in the process so that it fits the bite-sized pills you can push on most channels, or worse change it so much for the audience until it becomes something else entirely.

For the past 5-6 years I've been writing a book in my spare time. The outline of it is how reason emerges in past societies from the needs of social complexity, how it's lessons get converted into rules and rituals, which in turn remove any competitive advantage of aquiring reason, ending it to setup a new cycle. And in the meanwhile LLMs became the ultimate heuristic of humanity.

I've gotten it 60-70% ready, and I really don't know if it'll have an audience in a post-AI world. I never meant to strike big with it, but I'm now wondering if thousands of hours of research and writing can amount to more than a novelty gift I'd give to friends.

Can you first define what you'd be comfortable considering as evidence before I spend time on this? I don't want to provide research just so the other party complains that there's still some cultural bias somewhere.

Also, what kind of humans do you generally interact with? How many of these are children?

Yes, but you also get vastly different outcomes when you don't impose these as well.

A snide and vitriolic remark that observes on how the first paragraph actually addresses the concern of the person which hasn't read the article. A further continuation on this being representative of the state of modern online discourse.