zelphirkalt

While it is certainly good to do estimation oneself and not just blindly follow whatever the LLM outputs, keep in mind the recent PHP-related events ... Just because at some point one is not able to make a PoC, it doesn't mean, that no one else ever will be.

Glad they chose the more sane way of Ruby, regarding whitespace.

I sometimes "hate", exactly because of people having learned one flavour of OOP, usually the Java flavor of "everthing must be a class" and trying to shoehorn everything into that style of programming, insisting that inheritance must be had, even though many people have already learned the lesson of composition over inheritance, and even though one of the most popular newer languages, Rust, doesn't even have inheritance or classes. Also the "mutate everything from everywhere, as long as I have a setter"-style.

That dogmatic Java-flavor-OOP and their ideas of translating design patterns 1-to-1 to other languages like Python, disregarding the language specifics and language design choices ... ugh, such a PITA.

That's where my guards are going up, and I start observing very closely, what that person's understanding of OOP is, and whether they merely throw out buzzwords, or actually know something about what they are talking about.

Is that vanilla Emacs crashing? Asking because I had such things happening only with Spacemacs in a VM running on a Windows host and blamed Spacemacs.

Probably, the sign that it is a paradigm of the past, at least partially, are the issues Emacs has with UI blocking and multi-core usage. Great packages manage to mostly work around it, by outsourcing to other external processes and parsing the results, though the parsing happens inside Emacs. The issue and at the same time the enabler of many things, is the ton of global mutable state, that will be very hard to factor out at some point, if ever.

If those are the most prominent things you find for that abbreviation, I have to start doubting Wikipedia. As a German seeing that abbreviation so freely used is always a little bit shocking.

In a just world they would have to pull all models, for which this is the case, have auditors walking in left and right, supervising their training of the next version, to make sure they only train on material, that they are allowed to train on, and meticulously have them document every little corpus of data they use and its sources.

In reality we won't see this behavior stop, until Anthropic is hit with a huge penalty sledgehammer that threatens its existence. This is a gold rush and without real consequences, nothing will change.

The headline makes not much sense though. If the software used to be horrible, and now is getting worse, then what is the result? Abysmal software? In the light of this decrease of quality, the "but" seems misplaced, as if it indicated, that it is not so bad, while in fact software getting _even_ worse, will make some software unimaginably bad and we should worry even more.

It seems to be a typical case of unscrupulous people getting ahead. The more ruthless, the fewer obstacles, the easier they can beat competition. The more they grow, the more they get affirmation of "doing well", which only reinforces their corruption.

Hm, that's strange. I have used Pipenv and Poetry years ago, to reproducibly build data science environments that people used to learn about data science and data analysis. I don't think you can call that "toy projects". I guess you just had bad luck with some specific dependencies. What I do remember though is, that Poetry had far fewer problems than Pipenv had. Pipenv was still a fight, though I won every time one way or another.

I suspect, that lots of people hyping uv didn't have any proper reproducible project setups beforehand and didn't have to find solutions to that before uv. If they had, they would know about Poetry and how to use it.

I am of the same opinion, that uv didn't actually change all that much, if you have a sane project setup. I don't do anything with it, that I didn't do before with Poetry and before that with Pipenv. What I need is a way of installing dependencies, checked against a lock file, reliably. Poetry does that. If uv disappeared today, I would go back to Poetry and wouldn't miss all that much.

But there are the people who want to write one-off scripts with loosely defined dependencies inlined into the scripts. I don't do that. I would just copy my Makefile and pyproject.toml file from another project and adjust it and then run the script just as well with locked dependencies. Why do anything less. If I want to be really sloppy, I can just pip install.

Zuban is a one-man show though, with a bus factor of probably 1.

There are areas of expertise or experience, where I know, that no one else has actually made the right tool for me, so I have to make it myself, and I like being able to do it myself. One is a good tool for learning the vocabulary of Mandarin. I just have very specific ideas how it should work and look and I don't think there is any other tool, that does it like my personal tool. I like such projects, but I think even among developers, the percentage of devs thinking like this is decreasing, as there are fewer and fewer people in this profession, who are in it because they actually love developing things, compared to more and more who do it for the money.

What kind of browsing activities did you automate away?

If I think about what I do, like reading HN, reading some subreddits, watching series, asking LLMs things, ... I don't see how any of it can be usefully automated away, in such a way that it achieves an equivalent result.

And in software that is easily done. Write a whole software suite or spend copious amounts of time on configuration of a behemoth software to fit a tiny use case. Or have scope creep. While all you need is a single shell command in a cronjob.

Surely their AI is soooo dangerously good, that it will find profitable avenues and business ideas, if you just ask it!

If you take their marketing bla as truth, I don't find the OP's question to be an exaggeration at all. They should be able to do that easily. Just need one person per business who is a master prompter and off you go! By now no engineers needed, no lawyers needed, and no designers needed, right?

If you haven't tried it yet: Those expensive but very ergonomic keyboards (glove80, kinesis, ...) with very light key switches did do the trick for me. Had severe RSI at some point from hacking away at a laptop and then at home at an ordinary keyboard, so that I went to doctors. But they didn't know about such keyboards, and I couldn't just stop doing my job that I loved. Anyway, now I very rarely have any issues at all. Worth trying if you have not yet.

It may sound harsh, but I think when such circumstances are reality, then people value their children and whatever else they have all the more while they have them/it.

I somewhat doubt the "fairly mechanical" claim. I think when you actually turn it into real programming language code, that's when lots of the edge cases become apparent and then you will face a lot of new questions, that the natural language or the pseudo code didn't cover.

> I don't want to update every place someone matches on my enum, when it's something not even in my project, just to get my PR to merge. Three teams use it? Fine. Ten? More? Not fine. You are adding cases into someone else's code just to unblock your own work.

Then don't upgrade your dependency onto the other crate.

Anything more than a hobbyist will have properly pinned versions, and not just sling around version ranges loosely. At the very least will not update lock file just like that, without considering, that there may be consequences.

In a few years probably no one will be thinking or talking of Mythos any longer, as it is just the next marketing item in the never ending chain of items to be released as the next scary thing.

The first one is not a "really bad case", but the intention of having a strict enum. You want to be force to update, in order to not miss any places, where the change could cause an error. That's the very benefit of it.

Second case is the same. The other team needs to definitely know, that their assumptions expressed in their current code are broken and need to be adjusted.

We just need to stop to take whatever shit Google is doing as the one bar to measure all others, and need to understand that they may be different requirements than a typical business. We are not Google.

Did you know you can make tables in CSS now ... ; )

Why do you not do any refactoring of styles?

I am not quite sure I understand what you are getting at. Surely, we don't have to go into why syntax is extremely significant for feasibility of implementing features. I mean, we don't code in assembly much these days, do we?

That's why you wouldn't target those 2 divs directly, but have one dedicated place, in which you update the divs and call that place from any other place that needs to update the 2 divs.

Well, that's simplifying the situation, but as those situations become more and more in ones site, at some point one might switch to a mediator pattern, which kind of is very close to signal emit and listening for signals.

And just a while ago, I decided against hosting a PHP-based forum service, and instead build my own. Feeling vindicated today.

Personally, I am looking forward to any rich-enough companies, that make horrific WP websites and call it a day, rather than actually caring what they force upon people, to have their websites defaced. I have long held the opinion, that you can't really make an actually professional website, that is anything more than a blog, based on WP.

It just has so many flaws, that it will always be shitty in some way or another. For an actual business of say > 5 people, it will be worth using other technology to make their web presence.

There will always be something some of the following:

(1) You have 20 plugins to manage and update things often, and still have vulnerabilities and exploits going on with your site.

(2) Your theme is shitty and not actually responsive, because it is built upon a trash pile of bad styling and badly thought out WP theme structure which relies on concatenation rather than composition of parts.

(3) The database is a mess, because you need to shoehorn things into WP's very limiting DB design of posts and pages being the primitives to think in terms of.

(4) The site is super sluggish. Then self-taught "WP specialist" comes and "saves the day" by installing yet another caching plugin, adding even more attack surface. And now your site relies on yet a badly written cache plugin.

(5) WP itself will break your code and also break your data protection, by having updates, that include third-party fonts to misuse fonts, to render unicode characters that you used as friggin icon characters from that third party font. (no joke, this happened)

So you really cannot win this battle and your site will simply not be a site, that I would consider actually professionally made. The whole WP ecosystem is too broken, to allow you to succeed. You would have to go against many of its common practices and if you do that, you don't actually benefit from that ecosystem and can simply use another language and another web framework, that doesn't suck so much for creating web platforms.

WP is for quick blogging. Don't use it for other stuff.

"Some scripting for dynamic things" will never satisfy the "everything must be an SPA" crowd, unfortunately.

CSS has warts, true, but you are not forced to use them. Modern CSS can be brief and clean.

I agree. And I don't even use layers yet. I keep specificity roughly in mind and narrow my selectors using nesting properly to only affect what I want the rules to style. Do I make mistakes? Sure, but they are easy to fix. Make selectors specific enough and think about whether the rule you are writing is something general or just something for this one component on the page, and it is eeeeasy to not make a mess these days.