yacthing

Did you just link to an article from 2024 as if 2024 is relevant these days?

Do people not remember the days of viruses destroying computers?

They were a massive issue before, and now they're barely a thought for most people.

These review processes have been good for the general population.

No idea why he's so famed. I've been to a few of his houses and they are completely impractical to live in.

So focused on making things look good, but spent no time thinking about people actually living in the houses.

Maybe they saw traffic that looked like AI prodding an API and quickly adapting to find the bug?

But at this point I feel like odds are everyone looking for vulnerabilities is using AI to some extent. Why wouldn't they? It'd be stranger if they didn't.

No one is dying when Pelosi insider trades.

There are inefficiencies with both. In a perfect world, yeah, it'd be more efficient to not have capitalism. You'd just have to get around inefficient labor allocation, increased fraud, etc.

At least for capitalism, the amount extracted by ad companies is known and taxed.

It's not fair to compare things in practice (captialism), and in theory (whatever you're suggesting).

This is about as useful of an argument as when people say taxpayer funded services aren't free.

Those who are wealthier pay more into the tax system, allow those who are less well off to gain access to things they normally wouldn't. This is a good thing.

Likewise, those who are wealthier are buying more products that are advertised, allowing those who are less well off to gain access to the internet for closer-to-free. This is also a good thing.

We can put limits on how advertising is done, give control over your data, etc etc. But the fundamentals stay the same.

So no: paying your way towards internet products won't save the average person money.

If you want to comfortably retire, then one of the following is probably true:

1. you have a solid pension

2. you should care about capital gains taxes

3. you're REALLY rich and don't care.

Easy to say if you either:

(1) already have enough money to survive without working, or

(2) don't realize how hard of a life it would be to "flip burgers" to make a living in 2026.

We live very good lives as software developers. Don't be a fool and think you could just "flip burgers" and be fine.

'"AI" is literally models trained to make you think it's intelligent.'

What's the difference? I try to make people think I'm intelligent all the time.

Most people optimize for productivity and not raw quality of code. I can't imagine that your productivity is higher for removing autocomplete.

I'm not saying you need every plugin ever, but autocomplete?

Maybe you haven't tried "advanced" editors in a while, and it was a lot worse last time you tried?

> So what's your answer?

My answer is simply: It's not a 5 minute regex change.

I'm not even saying it shouldn't be prioritized or isn't worth the effort. Just that you should give the problem a bit more respect.

That's a lot of words, but I think it boils down to: you're making an assumption that two calendar events with identical naming and identical time entries will always have a desired behavior of being deduped.

- Maybe you want to separately invite people to the same thing and have different descriptions, now you're increasing the number of things to equate.

- Maybe a user creates one event that is simply a title and a time, and they then want to create a second one for another purpose. However, it keeps getting deduped and they don't know why. Now you have a user education problem that you have to solve.

- Now you might think: well just make it a toggle in the settings! Okay well now you have to add a new setting and that expands the scope of the project. Do you make it opt-in or opt-out? If it's opt-in, what if no one uses it? Do you maintain the feature if there's a migration? If it's opt-out, you still have the above problems.

I could go on. And this is mostly an exercise of not underestimating a "simple" change. Calendars (and anything involving time) in particular can get very complicated.

> We're both programmers so we're both know we're talking about a one line regex...

As a big tech programmer, it's almost never that simple...

Small edges cases not covered by a one line regex can mean big issues at scale, especially when we're talking about removing things from a calendar.

It's a form of "I told you so". It's insensitive, but probably appropriate given the importance of moving forward gun control efforts.

Well people aren't talking about not deploying to staging on Fridays.

And there are hints to what the author actually means, like "Each deploy should be owned by the developer who made the code changes."

That just isn't feasible in a system that's of any reasonable size.

This reads like someone who works on a small and simple system.

"Deploy on every commit" lmao

"Shipping software and running tests should be fast. Super fast. Minutes, tops." hahah