ubertaco

I've used libraries before, where I call the API surface that they expose based on method names and parameter types, without reading all the source. Generally those libraries don't implement my software's entire problem domain area; they tend to implement things like "CSV parser" or "HTTP server". The important code, that I'm actively reading and writing, tends to be the code around those library calls.

This is different from building a product, which you only interact with via UI buttons/CLI/etc, without reading any code to understand how it conceptualizes that product's problem domain area.

People do that latter thing, and we call them "users", not "developers".

If you believe like some guys do that you can just point a camera at any painting in the world and replicate it, what is the point of painters again?

(i.e. the ability to copy existing things does not obsolete the need to be able to make new things)

>Why would you want this? What's the point of the server if you mirror deletes?

Sharing and backups, with the phone serving as the "source of truth" and the server as a replica that is more accessible to a partner/friend/etc than the contents of your phone's filesystem.

Sometimes, certain processes strongly predict bad outcomes, though.

If someone told me to choose between two barbecue restaurants, where one used an wood-fired smoker and the other used a microwave, my reaction wouldn't be "you really shouldn't judge based on just the process." The microwave is a sufficient indicator of low quality.

Vibecoding (as distinct from using AI as a resource while writing better code yourself) is the microwave: fast, hands-off, low-effort, low-quality.

The one caveat here is that, because Apple only really allows certain apps the privilege of running in the background without being interrupted or killed, I could never get the iOS version of Immich to reliably sync photos without having to manually open it and leave the app open until sync finished.

This was a few years ago, and was one of several "iOS breaks our crucial workflows" problems that motivated switching our last device over to Android, so the situation might be better now...but I've never had that problem with the Android client, so I know it's not an Immich problem.

I read their "why use our fork" page, and it's very obviously AI-written, which causes me to distrust it.

As a happy Immich self-hoster, I'm not excited by the idea of switching to a fork written by folks who can't even be bothered to write their "why this fork exists" explanation themselves. It inspires very low confidence both in the quality of the many additions (because of the vibecoding) and the long-term sustainability of the project (because of the lack of any effort, and because vibe-coded one-offs tend to die faster than labors of love).

Buried at the very bottom of the wall of slop text on their "why our fork" page is this very last "FAQ" question:

>Why fork at all instead of upstreaming features?

>Several Gallery-exclusive features (Shared Spaces, Pet Detection, contextual filters) were either declined upstream, considered out of scope, or required architectural changes that wouldn't have fit Immich's roadmap. Forking lets us experiment without slowing down the upstream team — and rebasing means we never lose touch with their progress.

There's no mention there of "our vibe-coded implementations of these features were declined by upstream because we vibecoded them"; instead, they frame it as "upstream doesn't want these features for their users", with a dash of "upstream has made bad design decisions" (particularly the note about how upstream Immich "required architectural changes").

That's more than a little disingenuous on "Noodle Gallery's" part.

Coincidentally, Salesforce just laid off the senior engineering lead on their shared login service team who 2 months ago was describing the practices his team follows to keep 99.95% uptime on that shared login service (this guy: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/patricktprice_engineeringmana...)

Layoffs are usually short-term money-savers at long-term cost, but hot damn this is the shortest short term I've ever seen.

To quote a comment I saw either here on HN or on Lobsters (can't remember which):

>A vibe-coded password manager? Sign me up!

Yeah, if only the government didn't regulate that pesky

checks notes

workplace safety, then for-profit companies could be free to act for the good of all, like they always do!

Probably depends on how you came to the opposite conclusion; if peer-reviewed research showed that outcome, it'd probably be a lot easier than if it was just "I turned out fine."

I've read comments that sound just like yours from consparicists any time another study disproves links between vaccines and autism. You might consider whether the reason the opposite view isn't well-regarded is because it's disproven.

This reminds me of the fiction series "The Last Policeman".

We're commenting on a site run by a Silicon Valley tech start-up accelerator. "Move fast and break things" is the accelerationist way, even if the "things" they break are a stable, functioning social order. As long as you IPO and cash out along the way, you can wreck everyone else's lives just fine, in the minds of this sort.

You said:

>If you give any regularly-occurring event that varies in intensity enough time, it is guaranteed to break the records of its previous intensities.

I don't even have to add emphasis myself, you already did.

Someone then named a regularly-occurring event of varying intensity (summer is hot), and pointed out that the data shows the opposite of your explanation (i.e. this isn't random variance causing random spikes; this is a continuous increasing trend).

You then said, effectively, "not that regularly-occurring event of varying intensity!"

Kinda seems like you're moving the goalposts a bit.

Same reason people lobby for fracking or sell mass surveillance software.

Adobe Air, for the obscure nostalgia bomb

Do I get to be the one to make the inevitable joke about GitHub and "highly available"?

Or the joke about GitHub's frequent downtime being an effective throttler?

Ah yes, that well-known link between having immense wealth and being characterized by restraint and regard for the well-being of others.

That's why Elon Musk is both the richest man in modern history and also the most upright, caring, and self-restrained one too!

I'd recommend clicking through the headline to watch the talk. Metz talks a lot about types of similarity: similarity by coincidence vs similarity due to an actual semantic or functional equivalence.

Code that is coincidentally similar very often diverges in either the short or long term, and DRYing it up aggressively tends to result in functions that have many boolean parameters that each trigger disjoint sets of behavior - which is a bit of a nightmare to maintain due to the high cognitive overhead of remembering how all the interleaved-but-actually-unrelated behaviors should work.

This outcome is low-cohesion code.

It's a useful concept to be aware of - worth clicking through to the actual content of the talk rather than just the headline.

Tell me you've never been to Idaho without telling me you've never been to Idaho, where a considerable portion of the population (especially around Moscow, Idaho) wants explicitly to repeal the 19th amendment (the one that gave women the right to vote).

Or Michigan, home of both Henry Ford (and his now-infamous Dearborn Independent, which still seems to resonate with most Michiganders that I've met) and Charles Lindbergh.

What you're describing is a rural areas problem, and the South, most of which has never really developed much urbanism (outside Atlanta and maybe Charlotte) has never had to "grow up", much like rural Michigan has never had to "grow up" and remains a hotbed of MAGA racism and plots to kidnap their governor, or the same way that much of Idaho has never had to "grow up" and is a common destination for Doug-Wilsonites and similar "trad" homesteaders. Drive an hour outside of Detroit or Lansing and ask the almost-universally-white rural folks what they think of Dearborn and they'll tell you all the same wild "sharia law" white-replacement conspiracy theories they've told me over and over again.

And of course, even Boston famously took rather poorly to the notion of desegregation – look up Boston's reaction to "forced bussing" (since the only way to racially-integrate Boston schools was to bring in black kids from outside Boston, since the redlining had been so severe there, and the city was covered in widespread protests).

>Their expertise will be used to improve Grok Build coding agent.

Is Grok not a toxic enough brand (by association with Musk) that people who would use Cursor wouldn't avoid Grok?

Like, the assumption seems to be that all the goodwill that Cursor users have towards Cursor will now apply automatically to Grok, which seems like a pretty significant leap.

>Homeschooled people just assume others must be unhappy in those places where they dont go, but that is not the case and not shown in statistics.

I hear you. I grew up in the "homeschool evangelical separatist" bubble, where sending your kids to public school was seen as a sin. I know I still have some unconscious biases left over from that that I'm still working out, and having never been in the public school system myself, I can't speak from any experience there.

I mostly speak from the hearsay of friends/family who did go to public school, some of whom did both models and were generally unhappier (bullied, left unhelped by overburdened teachers) than when they were homeschooled.

My point was not that the unhappiness is a universal experience, but rather than the mandatory nature of repeatedly returning to the same place for school makes unhappiness, when present, inescapable. Thus, yes, there's socialization happening in those cases, but it's negative, and it's inescapable without major changes (like changing schools, which for many requires moving, given the high cost of private school).

>Also, those people asking the question you find weird were asking about the experiences and kind of socialization that they consider big deal and was not going on in that place.

This is the part where I think you're trying to speak to my experience from a place of assuming you have more knowledge about my life than I do. I know the conversations that happened with us as kids and with our parents. The assumption was that if you weren't around other kids in school, specifically, that you were missing something important that these other adults described as "socialization", but often couldn't actually define beyond just using that term without a good understanding of what it means.

As another commenter points out, "socialization" is different from "socializing"; it's an actual sociological "shaping" process (like how some environments can socialize children towards learning that you shouldn't steal, while other environments can socialize children towards learning that they should do whatever it takes to get ahead, including stealing). Socialization is a process, not a goal; it's how community norms and standards are instilled through both negative and positive reinforcement, but those community norms and standards (like "the biggest kid on the playground gets their way through threats", as in one family member's case) can be negative.

The adults asking these questions, when asked what they meant, could never articulate what they were afraid we wouldn't be socialized towards. Just that we "wouldn't be around other kids", which both wasn't a direction of socialization (but was instead a means of socialization) and was demonstrably untrue by the fact that these questions were being asked at soccer practice, at the playground, at the local YMCA, etc.

Salesforce Einstein™ Agent Cloud (not to be confused with Agentforce, which will have basically the same goals and the same target market, until they kill off Salesforce Einstein™ Agent Cloud eventually).

>The mainstream parties are not offering alternatives,

This part rings a little hollow when it's one of those mainstream parties that's doing the demagoguery.

>can you blame those who are disaffected by this rapid societal change from reaching out to support the first name that voices critique at policies they dislike?

Yes and no.

Can I blame people for recognizing that something in their life isn't working? No. Can I blame them for willfully accepting claims that offer no attempt at proving themselves with evidence, and that consist almost entirely of "people who look different than you are the only reason you have any problems"? Yes, because the average person shouldn't be so easily duped, and if they are, it's generally because they already wanted a reason to blame "those people" and anyone offering the faintest excuse ought not be "good enough".

>more people will be peaked by the discontent it can sow,

I think this is sort of begging the question a bit, in the sense of assuming a specific conclusion is true when asking the question of whether it's true.

In particular, I don't think it's demonstrably true that immigration sows discontent. I do think that it can be shown based on the US example that far-right parties looking to sow discontent often scapegoat immigration as the cause for societal problems that may have nothing to do with immigration (like the classic "your cost of living has gone up coincidentally at the same time that corporate profits are at an all-time high and regulatory capture is widespread; it must be immigrants to blame for things being expensive!")

>All things being equal, if a person works remotely, apparently they're more likely to trend reclusive.

The existence of families and housemates reveals this to be a false dichotomy: either you're spending in-office time with coworkers or you don't like being around any people, seems to be the claim.

This reminds me of growing up as a homeschooled kid and hearing people ask my parents "but how will they socialize?", generally while we were at the youth soccer field or at the playground or somewhere else that the irony should have caught their attention.

Homeschooled kids can be isolated more because they don't have the forcing function of mandatory group settings, but often there are other opportunities available for socialization beyond just the one normally-compulsory (and, often miserable) environment.

Similarly, remote work for the last near-decade for me has given me a lot more time to be engaged socially with my family and other local communities – time that used to be entirely lost to a long commute. My mental health is drastically better than when I was working in-office, largely because I don't have over an hour of traffic each way to deal with, and especially because I get to be engaged with my family more and be much closer and more involved with my kid than I would otherwise.

Can I get a version of this without the over-the-top misanthropic "don't reproduce" comment?

I hate it when you quote the AI at me because you stop treating both yourself and me like humans who are communicating. I want to pull you up out of that dehumanization, not drop down into it myself in retaliation.

>You're claiming that there is some arbiter of truth out there that is immune to bias, which is completely nonsensical. Bias creeps in everywhere because at the end of the day someone has to pay the salaries of these "fact-checkers" and the people paying them want to see a certain narrative upheld. Pretending that isn't the case is absurd.

This is just epistemological nihilsm.

Maybe it should've been clear from your username, but it doesn't seem like you believe in the concept of truth itself in any useful way.

Consider: perhaps this is the product of your own biases? What then? Does that invalidate or prove your theory of the world? Or is it impossible to tell once you've adopted the notion that nothing can be verified (because that includes the claim that nothing can be verified)?

In any case, I'm sorry. That sounds like a really stressful way to live a life.

Okay, so you're linking a known tabloid whose sensationalized headline is still not about the actual content of the Snopes website being inaccurate, and instead is leaning hard on ad-hominems derived from legal drama between the then-divorcing husband-and-wife team who ran the website originally (with the husband continuing to run it after the wife had stopped working on it years ago).

The only thing in the Wikipedia section you linked that's actually about the content on the Snopes website is the thing where they had to create a label for "Satire" after people got mad that a right-wing satire site (literal, actual, intentional "fake news" but for comedy purposes) had its knowingly-false stories labeled as "false".

(don't come at me with "it was bias"; I lived in the right-wing evangelical bubble through my whole childhood and young adulthood all the way through to the early 2010s; I know the boy-who-cried-persecution complex that lives there, and I also know what the Babylon Bee both was and is quite well; they were never trying to be a real news source, so getting mad that their comedic fiction was labeled "false" is really a stretch).

You haven't exactly shaken my faith in their ability to do the thing they do: find primary sources, present them, and give a verdict based on those primary sources.

You're getting downvotes because the target of this particular lie was a known liar, so people probably feel like it's some sort of poetic justice (or they know it's just in-kind retaliation and are cathartically satisfied by it).

I don't think the right answer to widespread disinformation campaigns is retaliatory disinformation campaigns (even if they're couched – pun not intended – in a just-barely-thin-enough veil of "wink wink we know this is a joke").

The right answer is to create systems and measures that actually limit disinformation.