gorjusborg

I agree in principle that absorbing the best from the ecosystem is good. However, anything pulled into core should have a long lifetime and be considered part of the API. This deserves careful consideration, and plugins work really well until it is clear there is a reason to pull something in.

What is 'over' is the idea that AI assisted coding is only hype that will go away. It is clear that software development is going to be different in ways we've not seen before.

Today I faced an unexpected challenge in a high-pressure environment. I experienced a rapid loss of structural support (my trousers), which led to a complete pivot in my physical trajectory. I didn't just fall; I deep-dived into a new ecosystem (the toilet).

This experience taught me three things about resilience: 1. Always ensure your foundations are secure. 2. When you hit rock bottom, make sure it's a splash. 3. Failure is just an opportunity to wash off and start fresh.

Grateful for the growth. #Resilience #GrowthMindset #Agility #LessonsLearned

There are a few things I take away from this post:

1. If you care about the physical manifestation of a product, maybe Amazon.com is not the place to be shopping for it.

2. If the product as it arrives is substantially different from that ordered, it seems dishonest of the seller.

3. While the physical book is a source of joy for me as well, I feel lucky to live in a time where I can own a copy of a book that only a handful of people value, for a reasonable price.

From the article, verbatim:

> We're not giving up. Digg isn't going away.

Post title is misleading.

The question that comes to mind for me after reading your comment is how can a question about a game require that much context?

I laughed out loud when the author wrote 'it replaced nano'.

So you are claiming to have tried dozens of editors, discarded them, only to land on nano as your daily driver?

If that's true, this person must be a character.

I try not to assume malice (i.e. Hanlon's Razor) when it happens to me. Unfortunately the mob rule seen on other user-curated sites seems to be infectious.

I try to gently call it out here when I see it, though, because HN is the one user-curated site where I still feel that people come to get to 'truths' versus 'agendas'. I want it to stay that way!

I know discussing HN behavior is off topic, but parent's comment is a perfect example of something unpopular that adds to conversation.

We shouldn't use votes to squelch opinions we don't hold. We should use them to improve the discourse.

Yeah, macros are definitely helpful at times, but not as much as one might think.

I think the same goes for multi-cursor, though.

Exactly the same for me. So far, there have been many challengers but the same champion (subjective, I know).

I came to read an article, and all I got was a crummy advertisement.

> free software fanatics have bullied and eager programmers

We must travel in different circles. I've been around a while, and I've never seen _any individual_ bullied for keeping their code closed source.

That said, I have an extreme bias toward only using open source code, for practical reasons, and I'm open about that.

I would say that people outside of tech aren't aware of the implications and potential use of the data.

Once people realize, they begin to reject. This is why I mentioned the superbowl ad and it shouldn't be waved away as an outlier.

I'm amazed you can't see the difference.

Body cam - used to protect the police and people being policed in a potentially hot conflict. Recording is scoped to these specific interactions that rarely occur for most people.

Doorbell cam - highly controversial. See response to dog-finding superbowl ad.

Body cam wore on face - Mass surveillance in potentially every conceivable social context. Data owned by Meta, a company known for building a profile on people that don't even use their products.

They are people of very similar mentality, with opposing sensibilities.

The rest navigate quietly, bobbing in the rippling wakes of their passionate fighting.

Shh, don't give them more stupid ideas ;)

Well, that depends on whether the technology requires expertise that is rare and/or hard to acquire.

I'd say that using AI tools effectively to create software systems is in that class currently, but it isn't necessarily always going to be the case.

These types of takes are getting really tiring. The game isn't over, just the metagame.

I'm not saying I have the next metagame figured out, but AI doesn't magically solve all the worlds problems by existing. It likely even creates a new classes of problems. In such an environment there's going to be opportunity.

Are the software shops and devs who were winning at churning out SaaS products going to be the best suited to this new environment? Maybe not, but adaptation wins over non-adaptation, something that has always been the case.

I really liked the show despite Lee Pace's performance.

Pace really nails the intense Jobs vibe, but having seen his other work, it seems like it might not be 100% acting. There's consistency to the off feeling he gives across roles.

Gordon's role was probably the most setting accurate, but I do feel the story would have suffered if the entire cast was realistic to 80s standards rather than translated into late-2010s sensibilities.

All you've said here is that you (and many others) have shown in the past that they've valued convenience and rapid feature development over freedom and stability.

That is good to understand, but when that trade starts causing issues, it is important to remember that there was a trade made.

We aren't as stuck as we think we are, unless we decide not to reevaluate our past choices.

> But this will only happen after the last programmer has died and no-one will remember programming languages, compilers, etc.

If we're 'lucky' there will still be some 'priests' around like in the Foundation novels. They don't understand how anything works either, but can keep things running by following the required rituals.

First, in the U.S., privacy laws vary by state, so the blanket statement about 'the US' is incorrect.

Second, laws are made by people. The fact that many of us do not want to be recorded 24/7 is why it is worth discussing.

Part of the problem here is that people who love it are affecting people who do not. If you want to put cameras to record inside your home, fine, but this is people recording their neighbors without consent. The sales pitch is finding Fido, but I doubt that is the end game here.

> It's not really about the individual people. They're probably all pretty normal interpersonally. Our systems reward this behavior, so people do it.

Sorry, but people who do things they normally wouldn't because they are rewarded are not good people. They may be 'normal' in a distribution sense, but that doesn't mean the behavior becomes acceptable through it becoming commonplace.

The permiability of the membrane would still be reduced by stuff on it, but as long as there is any permiability, the inner compartment will reach equilibrium eventually.

The big gain comes from a change in how you interpret the presence of electrons.

The older approach converted oxygen to electrical current, the magnitude of current flow relating to magnitude of oxygen depletion. The assumption built into that approach is that low oxygen depletion levels meant low oxygen levels, but that wasn't the only potential cause, because it ignored variation in the permiability of the membrane.

The newer approach equates current flow to oxygen concentration, as the system doesn't deplete the concentration any longer. The permiability of the membrane in this setup only contributes to a longer initial delay as the inner chamber comes to equilibrium with the surrounding concentration.

Nobody tries to jail the automobile being driven when it hits a pedestrian when on cruise control. The driver is responsible for knowing the limits of the tool and adjusting accordingly.

My time with Vi/Vim is similar, measured in decades.

There's a lot in Vim, and there's no requirement to be a tech maximalist. Settling at core features is not being a noob.

I'll second this.

I've used this action to debug builds, and it works beautifully.

However, I've had to stop because the action isn't a 'verified' action and corporate policy.

I'd love to see github themselves offer something like this.

Your actual job is to produce positive outcomes for your stakeholders. Code can be part of that, but doesn't have to be.

If you are dumping AI slop on your team to sort through, you are creating drag on the entire team's efforts toward those positive outcomes.

As someone getting dumped upon, you probably should make the decision (in line with the objective to producing positive outcomes) to not waste your time weeding through that stuff.

Review everything else, make it clear that the mess is not reviewable, and communicate that upward if needed.