GGByron

None of these articles explain what "vibecoding" is, and on general principles I refuse to look it up.

> "C is a particularly good language for it"

A particularly good language for writing bad code? Quite the euphemism.

"Censorship is quietly deciding which games you can buy"

What an asinine sentence.

I can't imagine a better argument against using c. Isn't that the obvious, serious takeaway?

> "Are you sure that anyone but the big boys want to make a browser in the EU?"

Surely that's the point - a collusive oligopoly making end runs around the "free market". Just look at all the other replies, rich with apologia.

"My brain seems to naturally work in cause->effect order"

You must be Jesus. Most brains observe events first and use that information to reason about their causes.

"I think many speakers would still start with "He was hit by a ball", not "A ball hit him." We're not interested in assigning agency to the ball here, we're interested in the effects on the boy."

And you don't favor the shorter message?

"The main technique is keeping things simple."

Orwell also knew to avoid clichés, and lo, he made a much stronger argument for simplicity in his essays. "Keep it simple" means nothing by itself and Adams does not explain the concepts he hints at or even call them by their proper names.

None of the above would seem obnoxious had he actually cited Orwell.

I'm sure that's also an option but I'm looking at their website right now and it says I can own this warmed-over text editor outright for 179$. What a bargain.

I've not followed the literature very closely for some time - what problem are they trying to solve in the first place? They write "for documents to be effectively used in RAG pipelines, they must be split into smaller, semantically meaningful chunks". Segmenting each page by paragraphs doesn't seem like a particularly hard vision problem, nor do I see why an OCR system would need to incorporate an LLM (which seem more like a demonstration of overfitting than a "language model" in any literal sense, going by ChatGPT). Perhaps I'm just out of the loop.

Finally, I must point out that statements in the vein of "Why [product] 2.0 Changes Everything" are more often than not a load of humbug.

Large hard drives and fast internet do not render obsolete the principle of frequency domain compression. MP3 and JPG will probably remain in service for a very long time.

But of course, if people weren't habituated to this bogus conception of obsolescence, how on earth would Microsoft manage to sell them a word processor for $179.00?

"Pay less attention, otherwise you might become apathetic." Granted, mass media is generally slop (this article being no exception), but that's all the more reason one should observe and think carefully.

Doesn't that seem a bit too complacent? Personally I've always thought the opposite - malcontents have more to gain and less to lose by criticizing or opposing the status quo.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly are these stupid checkboxes supposed to accomplish? Surely they do not represent a serious obstacle.