SCdF

This exactly.

My post was not a fiery indictment of framework, more that I am musing that perhaps I have been duped. Not because they aren't repairable (they are), but because I didn't consider that the quality would be so much lower than other options.

I genuinely don't know which is cheaper or better for the environment: buying a macbook that I change out every 8-10 years (this is how long they would last, based on prior experience), or I buy a framework and change out parts as they fail.

I had a similar issue on AMD 7040, where it would lock too I think 800Mhz or something. It didn't get hot, it would just obviously be very sluggish until I restarted. The issue popped up a few times, but I think was ultimately fixed with a Linux change.

> My conspiracy theory is that selling parts is pretty much their main business case.

I think this is absolutely what you sell to investors. For it to be attractive to consumers though (and thus attractive to investors, since people actually need to buy the thing), there has to be a balance. They haven't even managed to conjure up a market for third party expansion cards, which feels like the lowest of hanging fruit.

At the moment they are living on borrowed time and good will from the tech / hippie community who want to be more sustainable and customizable. I think they have likely lost me at this point. I don't know how close they are to losing everybody else.

I agree with their conclusion.

I somewhat regret buying my framework laptop at this stage, because the answer to every fault is "buy a new component, from framework".

I'm not sure I blame them for this really, but there is no competitive market of parts (or really any market at all), which means that the reality is that you're just locking your money to them. They also often have stock issues, so woe betide you if your component fails at the wrong time.

It's very hard to predict costs here, but framework laptops do seem to fail more than other brands, and their laptops do tend to be more expensive. In comparison to MacBooks I've used over the years, which other than screen delaminating, have been faultless, at least.

Ditto. It's not a reference to anything that I can find, and the concept of gravity is sort of mentioned once but never expanded upon enough for me to really understand what they mean.

How can people not trust in anecdotes and vibes while avoiding studies, do you mean?

Isn't that the point here? That everyone thinks massive disruption is happening and everyone is 100xing their productivity, but it's not actually showing up in the numbers anywhere?

In most industries that need software made for them it's hard enough to get people to care about spending enough time on informal methods let alone formal ones. I simply don't think most of the industry has had the breathing room and respect for engineering for this pattern to develop.

The cheapest internet where I live (just outside London) is gigabit, which is why I have it, but really I haven't needed anything faster than ADSL at any point, unless I guess I really want that game downloaded now now now.

That's not really the point of the topic though right, it's that in the UK I have the choice of a billion different ISPs, including (I think stupidly) three different fibre providers (I literally have two fibre connections to my house because I changed ISPs and they ran on different fibre networks), and in the US all I hear about is streamers complaining that they are all stuck with the same shitty ISP as there is no choice, in a country that supposedly champions choice.

It appears to be a real term? https://docs.vulkan.org/tutorial/latest/Synchronization/Asyn...

Very odd, but perhaps more familiar to graphics programmers? I will say I'd probably call it a stall, which is exactly what the Vulkan docs call it moments later, so :shrug:

Valve makes it very very easy to be a PC gamer, and, importantly, slightly harder to be a PC gamer who buys games in places other than Steam.

Yes you can buy games on GoG or Epic and play them on a steam deck or a steam machine. But it's juuuuust enough faff to be annoying enough, that you'd rather just get them on steam. I know people (and am a person) who have rebought games they already own so they are on steam, to make playing between steam deck and desktop more reliable.

It's the same with the steam controller. You _can_ use it with games outside of steam, but it's enough of a faff that you find yourself avoiding it.

It's incredibly effective, and why they are an effective monopoly in PC gaming.

Not OP, but I had to change the mail cache from all mail to recent, I think because it couldn't handle how much mail I had? It would often get stuck not syncing, and offline would be unreliable and showing a blank screen. Recent works fine, but it would be worthwhile folks testing more with all mail enabled, especially if they have larger inboxes.

It's more profitable because it allows you to select political perspectives that allow you, the scammer and or gambler, to scam or gamble harder.

Meal deals are in every supermarket in the UK. Petrol stations even do them.

Also, as a foreigner who lives over there, I think they are... sad? I'm surprised they got a positive reception from your coworkers. For me they are a backup and a failure to do something more interesting.

> LLMs aren’t lazy. They don’t cut corners because a simpler solution feels good enough. If they know how to solve something thoroughly, they will.

I don't know why they think this, but no? Perhaps it's badly expressed, but LLMs cut corners all the time. It's sort of their core fault really.

Anyway, I disagree with the core premise[1]. Re-writes are not cheap, because 1) code can be so bad it's unclear how to rewrite it[2], b) code can be so significant it's challenging to rewrite it (architectural choices, schemas, etc), and lastly if you're ever wanting to own your own code and not rent it from LLM companies, having it understandable by a human is still a goal worth working toward.

[1] To be fair, I think OP _might_ be talking about rewriting in the moment of the thing being built, but with some unspoken rule that once they think the change is good enough, then they are reviewing all the code? They don't make it clear..

[2] it's not even that hard. Write a test that exercises an end result and not the rule that causes that end result and 6 months later you've forgotten why the code is like that. I had to maintain a piece of software once where the primary form of tests were a bunch of snapshots of an end report being generated, based on some initial data input, mostly all unlabeled. The code was like "do this SQL query on table A and then take the second result". Why the second result? Your guess is as good as mine! I couldn't even work out why they were querying table A and not table B...

So 100%, I agree that it's highly dangerous that the distro's the next tranche of people unfamiliar with linux (gamers dissatisfied with Windows) move over with, are based on hecking Arch. It feels like a massive upcoming footgun.

I think the issue is those repos being based on Arch though, not Arch itself.

Not all tools are made for inexperienced people. Not everything is idiot proof. This is OK!

In my experience using the AUR:

1. when you first install the package you can read the build script (and you should). These are in a very standard structure, and if the one you are reading is weird and complicated consider not installing it. No one is forcing you to. Almost every build script I read just downloads a build from a tagged github release.

2. when you get an upgrade you are shown the diff. For almost every AUR package I use this is literally just changing the $VERSION variable and the subsequent $HASH of the download. It is trivial to see if anything (in the AUR script) is happening that is sneaky.

It's really not that scary. And if it's considered scary, there are literally dozens of other linux distros (not to mention Windows or MacOS) you could be using instead.

sorry that's what I meant: I remember watching their depositions or whatever they were called, and their only concern was whether or not they had spied on US citizens. Whether or not they spied on their allies, I do not recall any coverage of from their primary news outlets (or inside their depositions) at all.

We must live in different realities, because I have the direct opposite experience.

Perhaps we are defining "job" differently? AI can, with much coaching, _perhaps_[1], do some _aspects_ of a programmer's job. But not all of it, or even the most important parts of it.

[1] given that we have spent the past many decades pointing out that developer productivity is possibly impossible to measure, or at least very hard; given "done" vs "done done"; given the history of "rock star" developers creating messes behind them, the difference between short and long term thinking and the external imperceptability of that difference; given all of that, we haven't really had enough time to form a valid opinion on what AI can do, in the long run.

Back when Snowden leaked all of the spying information, the only thing the States cared about was whether they spied on their own citizens. The fact that they spied on the citizens of their allies, including yes, the EU, barely made the news.

I don't think it makes sense the assume the US considers any country its ally.

I had seen, up until LLMs, posts in this theme: https://dannorth.net/blog/the-worst-programmer/ pretty regularly. This one was only a few years ago!

Maybe we run in different circles. Or did, anyway.

IDK, I do think a lot of it is LLMs enable people who were not in our community to come into it (in an eternal september kind of way) and they are going through all this from first principals and ignoring their elders, but I've also seen technical people suddenly measuring themselves this way. The most optimistic read of this is that they _feel_ productive, and that feels nice, and they want to share how that feels, and so they are reaching for these garbage metrics because they have nothing else.

It is endlessly... amusing (?) to me, that we as a community spent decades trying to make it clear that our productivity is not easily measured because what we're doing is complicated and long running, only for AI to come along and suddenly LoC, Nx multipliers, tickets / week etc are held up as useful if not objective measurements.

The reasons we rejected LoC and other measurements have not changed (broadly: code output isn't important, quality output is). AI has all the same problems people do. But for whatever reason we are throwing what we've learnt away. It's kind of embarrassing.

Jesus fucking Christ. On a bicycle.

LLMs should be treated as untrusted. At all times.

The mind boggles at the attitudes that seem to have have led to LLMs being an excuse to throw any of the "science" in computer science we've managed to get into production out the window and go elbow deep into treating computers like mystical alchemy.

The next decade is going to be a bumpy ride.

This is perhaps a very American-centric article? I realise that ZIRP was near-global, but "When banks hiked interest rates, almost every tech company immediately laid off 5-20% of their engineers." does not track with my or my friends' experiences.

And, fundamentally, in countries with employee rights, as an employee I do not give two shits about interest rates the company I work at borrows on. My philosophy on software design does not change. You can argue that the company might pick and choose who it makes redundant, and they might value people who produce "more product", but companies have always valued that visibility. It's your responsibility, if you care, to sell your actions in a commercial context. I don't think ZIRP changes that, and I have not personally noticed a change there.

So currently there are people who are buying grey market peptides[1], marked "not for human consumption" and injecting themselves with them based on dubious anecdotes and vibes, to make their skin clearer, build muscle mass, and so on.

Are they are all suddenly turning into zombies? No. Do they have any real idea what that is going to do to their body a few years down the line? Also no. Could it be catastrophic? Maybe!

I think about this when I think about how violently much of the industry has pivoted into AI being the primary generator of code in the last 6ish months. AI is the peptide, your codebase[2] is the body. Literally no one knows how maintainable this approach is, because there simply hasn't been enough time to find out. It could be fine. It could be a complete mess, with your entire engineering team falling asleep at the wheel, lulled into thinking they understand what is being built when they don't, completely impotent to fix or maintain it once the LLM is no longer able to.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr268m5pxro

[2] Well, _their_ codebase. I've stopped doing it with my own personal codebases, unless I genuinely don't care about maintainability or longevity

Interesting project!

I would say some of the indicators are a little odd.

Some of them are questionable in terms of capturing the spirit of the idea ("violent crime" being the same in the UK and the US is a surprising one to me for example. It's capturing serious assault per 100k, but is then not considering murder as violent crime. You have murder later, but maybe combine / group them?).

Some are confusing because they are not clear politically: everyone wants less violent crime, but I don't know your politics and so have no idea which direction you have weighted net migration and asylum/capita.

It wouldn't be atomic, and so would break transaction semantics.

If you committed a row update but didn't update the index, a subsequent query using the not yet updated index would not find the updated row correctly.

It would also only work for certain types of indexes, you couldn't do it for uniqueness constraint for example.

I do agree that in theory you could have some extension to the index declaration that covers all that, but my worry there would be that it would be non obvious and a foot gun. Doing it the way described above makes that break in semantics clear.

Yes, many times. Roughly once a week this year my team or an associated team can't ship changes because PRs, GitHub Actions, or some other associated mechanism is down.

Not to be glib, but being dead lowers your night time heart rate more then exercise as well.

Is having a lower night time heart rate the core goal of exercise? Is it even a goal at all? Or is it just an indicator of other goals being reached? I'm genuinely curious, I wasn't aware that the number mattered, more than what that number actually represents.

If you use scrum, and if you have a scrum master. You categorically don't need to do either of those things though.