jbeninger

I bought mine from therealreal.com. I got a lot more ring than I'd normally be able to afford, and it's an elegant design you don't see everywhere.

Check with the recipient beforehand, of course. You're not the one who has to wear it, and no amount of logic is going to change a mind that wants a brand new, natural diamond.

I think there's a bit of an "everybody knows that" [1] phenomenon when it comes to knowledge like this. Devs come from different backgrounds and work on different types of projects. There are 10000 things you expected to know to be an expert, and all of us are continually learning.

[1] https://xkcd.com/1053/

I'd say I write the majority of my code in areas I'm familiar with, but spend the majority of my _time_ on sections I'm not familiar with, and ai helps a lot more with the latter than the former. I've always felt my coding life is speeding through a hundred lines of easy code then getting stuck on the 101st. Then as I get more experienced that hundred becomes 150, then 200, but always speeding through the easy part until I have to learn something new.

So I never feel like I'm getting any faster. 90% of my time is still spent in frustration, even when I'm producing twice the code at higher quality

Is it, though?

One of my favourite web-things of all time. Incredible creativity in an unexpected place.

What I mean is it would involve cryptographic signing to keep your data in "your network". Your friends can always download and share an image you've posted, of course, but it wouldn't be just stored out in the open somewhere. Content you post could only be unlocked by a key from your network. Threaded discussion could be limited to just a set of friends you choose, and their friends, by limiting the keys you distribute as part of the first post.

So blockchain has some similarities in that it allows a decentralized way of managing communication through cryptographic signing, but the core of blockchain is that it provides a full "chain" of transactions going back to the beginning of time, whereas this idea is less "chainy" and more of a graph, or maybe a bunch of little chains, each originating from your profile

I've often thought that what we need is a social network. You only see your friends, and your friends' friends, and so on. With tools for blocking branches of the graph and restricting views to those friends. All controlled by signed content. A blockchain without the "chain" bit, I guess.

The devil is in the details, of course. Is it even possible to thread the needle of usability and controlling your own data/algorithm? Maybe! But if there's going to be a human island, I think this is the way. Individual trusted connections branching out from you.

I think the analogy is that vibe coding is bad for you but feels good. Like a donut.

But I'd say the real situation is more akin to "if you eat this donut quickly, you might get diabetes, but if you eat it slowly, it's fine", which is a bad analogy, but a bit more accurate.

As an experienced coder, I find ai invaluable for a ton of stuff, nearly none of it writing production code.

* Variable naming

* Summarizing unfamiliar code

* Producing boilerplate code when I have examples

* Producing one-liners when I've forgotten the parameter order or API specification. I double check, but this is basically a Google that directly answers your question

* Pre-code brainstorming

* Code review. Depending on the language it can catch classes of problems that escape linters

In my experience it won't produce production-ready code, but it's great as a rubber duck and a second pair of eyes.

Juniors blame. Seniors silently judge.

Cults will surprise you. When like-minded people are willing to put everything they have into a project, 18 hours a day with no breaks, they can accomplish a lot.

Agreed. My point is that the orgs paying for all these updates were mostly motivated by the vague claims of experts rather than concrete examples

I read a tongue-in-check short story about an elf walking through a human museum.

"We think this urn was once used in agricultural ceremonies"

"Bitch, that's my coffee pot!"

Reading comments from older devs sometimes gives me the same vibes.

Demonstrate? Or just scaremonger?

Y2K showed that you don't need details beyond vague threats of "medication administered at the wrong time" and "planes falling out of the air" to get organizations and the public to care. No idea how that's going to tie into the conspiracy-heavy media landscape we inhabit now.

(Note I do think this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. And I'd love to see specific examples. I'm just pushing back against the idea that examples would make much difference to advocacy efforts)

Neither is said sporting event

Money for advertising is already a super sized network effect, making it difficult to challenge incumbents unless you're already rich,

Look, it's a radical idea and on its face, all at once, is impractical at the moment. So I suggest rather than pointing out the myriad of holes like shooting fish in a barrel, you give it the benefit of the doubt and roll around the ways it could work in your head. And what your online/offline experience would be if it were even 10% effective.

It already is that effective in a lot of the world with stricter advertising laws, and as a Canadian I do find the levels of advertising in the us landscape to be jarring. So there are examples

I have definitely been guilty of naming functions foo_thenBarSometimes. I wince whenever I write them, but I've never really regretted seeing them later on, even after years. So sometimes it really is a perfectly good name. Sometimes there are two related functions that are often called together and don't have a succinct label for the combined operation.

I always considered my education to be a "Table of Contents" listing for what I'd actually learn later

Having caught a few episodes since it ended, I think the real tragedy of LOST is how good each individual episode was in comparison to how terrible the overall planning was. It was engrossing during the episode, but any time spent outside that trying to tease out meaning or clues was just wasted time. Ostensible foreshadowing was really just "wouldn't it be cool if?" with no further thought behind it.

Nah, when you move that fast, further acceleration stops increasing speed and starts squishing time instead, so you asymptotically approach C.

So I guess what I'm saying is I see absolutely no problem with the flat earth arguments?

For my last few projects I've resorted to

*,*:before,*:after { min-width: 0}

I haven't had a single problem with it. I honestly feel this part of the spec was a mistake, given all the confusion I see. Online discussions suggest 'auto' is a counterintuitive default.

If you're using a bespoke editor anyway, why are you restricting yourself to a texty format? XSV formats inhabit this weird space halfway between data exchange and human readable. They're a compromise. If you go full data exchange you might as well use something even better suited for the job.

That's a huge technical obstacle for most people though. The whole point of XSV formats is to be human editable. There are better formats for computer-to computer records. If you can't the core delimiters on a keyboard, your format is going to lose out despite any of us other benefits

Start small and you might see the value. I find ai useless to produce code for me. But if I'm stuck on naming a variable or a complex object it's a great brainstorming tool. Almost like a very complex thesaurus.

And if I need to write a shell script that's good enough for a single one-off job, well, shell script is far from my native programming language, so it'll do a better job than I will

But if you were asked to spell the words, you'd produce something close to what was expected, rather than drawing a blank. The question "how do you spell wiedersehen" contains in itself a lot of clues.

This feels more like "what's the Unicode character for 'full moon'?" I'd be able to recognize the result as correct, but if I don't know the answer, I just don't know.

(Of course, that goes too far in the other direction. I assume you can draw a few strokes to "get someone started" on a character and they'll pick it up, whereas most people wouldn't recognize the first half of a Unicode code point. As the grandparent poster said, it's an exotic problem that's hard to empathize with in phonetic languages)

I suspect those were custom UI elements and not native. They remembered to onclick the label (or it's a native <label> element) but forgot to onclick the checkbox itself

"Miss" should be capitalized. I thought for half the article that it referred to an emotion and not a salutation.

I wish I could remember where I saw this quote - maybe a random comment on Slashdot back in its heyday? Paraphrasing:

"When we finally get a tool that will allow people to write code in plain English, it will be discovered that most people cannot speak plain English."

I made it so close to finishing without a guide, but I never thought to Close the Door, and wasted hours trying to find the next thing before finally giving up.

Unreliable? Non-deterministic? Hidden variables? Undocumented behaviour? C'mon fellow programmers who got their start in the Win-95 era! It's our time to shine!