brap

Wikipedia has long been hijacked to serve agendas. The “truth” is whatever the highest bidder wants it to be.

Most recently hijacked by the Qatar dictatorship: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-p...

News, influencers, Wikipedia, almost all information we consume nowadays is intentional. And not even getting into billions poured into American colleges by the same people.

Well this wasn’t really aimed at individual devs, but the team/company standards.

I’ve worked at several teams and it was always the norm that all PRs come with tests. There was never a dedicated QA person (sometimes there would be an eng responsible for the test infra, but you would write your own tests).

I would never accept a PR without tests unless it was totally trivial (e.g. someone mentioned fixing a typo).

Do people actually send PRs with no tests? That is so bizarre to me

This seems to be where it’s at right now, we can’t seem to make the models significantly more intelligent, so we “inject” our own intelligence into the system, in the form of good old fashioned code.

My philosophy is make the LLMs do as little work as possible. Only small, simple steps. Anything that can be reasonably done in code (orchestration, tool calls, etc) should be done in code. Basically any time you find yourself instructing an LLM to follow a certain recipe, just break it down to multiple agents and do what you can with code.

Koko, that chimp’s alright.

Context:

https://x.com/nikitabier/status/2009580983453122652

https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2009355413670821948

I like this but I hate how everything has to be tied to AI now to get attention. “I wanted to vibe code-“ who cares? It’s a neat tool, do we have to force AI into it?

>AGI seem as far away as it’s always been

This blurb is the whole axiom on which the author built their theory. In my opinion it is not accurate, to say the least. And I say this as someone who is still underwhelmed by current AI for coding.

Another commenter said something that resonated with me - it feels too real, loses the magic.

Gemini is my favorite, but it does seem to be prone to “breaking” the flow of the conversation.

Sharing “system stuff” in its responses, responding to “system stuff”, starts sharing thoughts as responses, responses as thoughts, ignoring or forgetting things that were just said (like it’s suddenly invisible), bizarre formatting, switching languages for no reason, saying it will do something (like calling a tool) instead of doing it, getting into odd loops, etc.

I’m guessing it all has something to do with the textual representation of chat state and maybe it isn’t properly tuned to follow it. So it kinda breaks the mould but not in a good way, and there’s nothing downstream trying to correct it. I find myself having to regenerate responses pretty often just because Gemini didn’t want to play assistant anymore.

It seems like the flash models don’t suffer from this as much, but the pro models definitely do. The smarter the model to more it happens.

I call it “thinking itself to death”.

It’s gotten to a point where I often prefer fast and dumb models that will give me something very quickly, and I’ll just run it a few times to filter out bad answers, instead of using the slow and smart models that will often spend 10 minutes only to eventually get stuck beyond the fourth wall.

It basically boils down to: capitalism works.

I think that’s exactly why they’re not including timestamps. If timestamps are shown in the UI users might expect some form of “time awareness” which it doesn’t quite have. Yes you can add it to the context but I imagine that might degrade other metrics.

Another possible reason is that they want to discourage users from using the product in a certain way (one big conversation) because that’s bad for content management.

I generally agree that they are garbage at producing code beyond things that are trivial. And the fact that non-techies use them as “fact checkers” is also disturbing because they are constantly wrong.

But I have found them to be very helpful for certain things, for example I can dump a huge log file and a chunk of the codebase and ask it to trace the root cause, 80% of the time it manages to find it. Would have taken me many hours otherwise.

What was the piece of furniture?

Great vision for 2030.

But as for today, have we all just collectively decided to pretend that the LLMs we have are capable of writing good software?

I use LLMs a lot in my workflow, I probably spend a whole day per week learning and fiddling with new tools, techniques, etc. and trying to integrate them in all sorts of ways. Been at it for about a year and a half, mainly because I’m intrigued.

I’m sorry but it still very much sucks.

There are things it’s pretty good at, but writing software, especially in large brownfield projects, is not one of them. Not yet, at least.

I’m starting to believe many are just faking it.

I think it’s more than just cultural. Yes, it’s definitely a factor, and there are cultures and there were times where paper white was considered beautiful.

But I think on some level we naturally associate severe paleness with being sick or non-social.

I say this as the original commenter

>My business now employs 250 full time people

You sure about that?

I’m naturally pretty pale and don’t get much sunlight, I feel like I look like shit unless I get just a little bit of tan. What most people would consider just a healthy looking “baseline”. It also puts me in a better mood although that may be entirely psychological.

When I was younger I used to intentionally tan for short durations, but now I realize that’s harmful so I just embrace the cave gollum look

I think the underlying assumption is that we are “real”, meaning our existence is grounded in some undisputed “reality”. So if what we perceive as the universe isn’t real, then there has to be some other real universe that is simulating it in some way.

Is there no way to tell the browser “hey this URL is using the same domain but please isolate it from the rest”?

Give this man a Turing Award

Nations that keep placing obstacles in the path of AI (e.g. taxes) will lose to nations that don't.

Ask yourself if this is a race you're willing to lose

>Think deeply about it and tell me if it is not or or not even

I think I just experienced a segfault

Leadership roles, especially in large corporations, often favor people who are opportunistic. They don’t care about the product, they want that promo.

And to win that promo you have to ship big and ship fast. So often times what you see is people delivering vaporware that has the appearance of high quality (lots of promises, looks amazing in the slides deck, carefully selected data shows great numbers, etc). It’s a gamble, and sometimes it pays off.

By the time people accept that it’s hot garbage, the leaders have already moved on to the next opportunity. And it’s not that they were able to fool their managers, because their managers are playing the same game on an even larger scale, so they care even less.

Of course, this is not always the case. But there is a bias, and it tends to show up more in large organizations (government, large corporations, etc.)

Citizens of those same rich countries will often say with a straight face that rich people need to pay more to support the poor.

How about rich counties paying more to support the poor counties? Should we all pay 90% tax to support the billions of the third world?

The usual first-world disapproval over wealth disparity... often oblivious to the fact that you, the reader, were the global 1% all along

For programmers I would say graphs or at least thinking in graphs is a common one.

Some would say SAT is also a handy trick but I’ve personally never used it.

Bailouts are not capitalism

That’s a very clean API.

Cheap in the sense that most target users don’t have to worry about allocating it