16bitvoid

And only about 5% (50M, last time it was reported) of them pay. The vast majority of those are using the free plan.

I'm struggling to see what any of this has to do with the parent comment. Maybe I'm having a brain fart.

I personally prefer nushell[0] over PowerShell for similar tasks. My main is still Fish, but I occasionally use nushell when interactively exploring structured data (e.g. JSON files because I always forget the jq syntax) and specific nushell scripts I have (e.g. finding all the available nodes with GPUs on a SLURM managed HPC printed as a pretty table), which I find much easier to write than bash/fish.

0: https://www.nushell.sh/

I'm also not a fan of the narrow width, but there is an "extended" width version that's more like other mono fonts, which is what I personally use, albeit customized.

So...poached, maybe?

Except they've been using it pretty actively for 5+ years.

I thought the piece sounded like AI as well, so I ran it through Pangram, which reports it as 100% AI. Considering Pangram's extremely low false positive rate, I'm inclined to believe this was AI written.

To be fair, in this case it wasn't a person at all. It was clearly Claude or some other agent.

97% human-written

If you got any more, I'd appreciate one too. My email is my username at 'pm' dot 'me'

Sounds like "Off to be the Wizard". The series is called "Magic 2.0"

I'm totally fine, just annoyed by how much this "try not to think too hard about the how and think more about the why and what"[0] is getting brought up every single time someone mentions why they prefer hand coding to vibe coding. At this point, it's being overstated, thus gives off less "this is why I use it" and more "come on, get onboard the hypetrain to dystopia or you're going to get left behind". It's hardly conducive to a "productive discussion" when it's the millionth time as a drive-by comment. What kind of response did you expect?

Look, I don't have a problem with your personal motivation. I just hate seeing it suggested that people should abandon their passion because someone else doesn't share it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "I enjoy making something useful" just as there's nothing wrong with "I enjoy making something with my hands or figuring out how to make it". My problem is with "your enjoyment of that is invalid because I don't enjoy that, so learn to enjoy this".

0: Not really a statement of your drive, is it? More of a directive or suggestion.

We get it, you don't have a passion for the act or the craft, just the end result, but I'm absolutely sick of hearing it all over this site as if it's a universal truth that some of us just don't recognize yet.

Sorry, some of us have a joy for programming where the how is just as important, if not more so, than the what and the why. No matter how much people proclaim that the how doesn't matter to them, it isn't going to suddenly make it true for others.

What about it?

Definitely. Despite the wording of my question, which I intended to be rhetorical, I understand why people are doing it. While I think that is one explanation, I think it's mostly hype or optimism. In other words, not so much grappling, but rather hoping and wanting AI to do anything and everything.

I just don't personally get why people want that. This endemic force feeding of AI down everyone's throats at every corner is just amplifying people's worst tendencies: greed, laziness, apathy, cognitive disengagement, etc. It's especially apparent when people suggest AI automating activities that have always largely been about personal gratification, growth, and/or expressions of thoughts to share with fellow humans.

I won't deny the benefits that some people get from LLMs (primarily experienced senior developers), but I feel those benefits are far and away outweighed by costs that it's already having on everyone else, both individually and societally.

Sorry for the rant.

Sorry, I don't mean to single you out in any way, but why does AI/LLMs have to get shoehorned into every discussion here? It's getting exhausting.

> Superintelligent AI is more dangerous than a bioweapon.

No, it's not because it doesn't exist (yet) and its further from reach than the other examples. Also, the guardrails are also framed as restricting usage for the development of "competing" products/services.

That's just what some people generally use to refer to LLM input string/prompt/message/etc. The only thing the LLM can do is return information...in the form of text, so every request is one for information.

If we want to get really pedantic, every generated token is the answer to the query: what's the next most probable token in this sequence of tokens?

No, they're saying that 80% of genai queries (aka anything sent to an LLM; I won't speak on the validity of the percentage) are not things someone would search on Google. It's things like trial-and-error vibecoding, openclaw-like agentic loops, talking to chatgpt like it's a person, etc. In other words, most genai queries are not for getting "obscure information" or even getting direct information at all. It's about either getting it to do something you don't want to do yourself, or using it as a replacement for someone else (junior dev, therapist, friend, significant other, etc).

Sure, it's not original or unique, but that wasn't your question. Facebook itself wasn't particularly unique when it launched.

Bandlab Studio, maybe? Never used it, but might be what you're looking for. There's a web version and a mobile app.

https://www.bandlab.com/creation-features

You don't have to login to X or download the app (if you're on mobile). X won't let you see the replies otherwise. I also prefer that the layout is denser and you can see more content at once, at least on my phone.

Community growth might imply technical success (debatable), but technical success does not imply community growth.

You can have a very technically successful project, but it doesn't mean it'll be used.

And endeavors, which are supposedly for the benefit of everyone, that listen to no one run into the ground even quicker.

That's beside the point though. I was pointing out the hypocrisy. This sidestepping and deflection seems to be a trend with you, both here and in the mailing list.

No point in responding to me though if it's just to grandstand. You've made it apparent to me that I want nothing to do with your project. Cheers.

Community size and positive community feedback, which is somewhat tangential to progress, which I assume is in the context of development. Also, the rate at which the original freenet community declines.

Number of contributors or pull requests isn't a good metric at the moment since the advent of Claude Code et al. has seen a dramatic uptick in both everywhere.

I also like how his first response to a reply to the announcement (and multiple others) was "who do you speak for?" while simultaneously framing a discussion with a single person, in private, as a good faith effort to hear from the community with the implicit assumption that that one person spoke for the community.

What does your progress have to do with the name? You're so defensive that you're reasoning with non sequiturs.

The bar isn't any higher. There's just no grace given. No one is judging a hobby project made by a human on quality, and the person who the hobby project belongs to will rarely say that their code is high quality. And in a professional setting, I think people are fine with "good enough" but they're not going to claim anything is high-quality.

But people are so quick to label their vibe-coded codebase as high quality and no grace is going to be given to a machine.

What comments are you seeing that are calling code from humans high-quality?

> I'm not sure if you mean "code gen without a plan/expertise" or just code gen. If you found joy because you enjoyed building things, now be the best time to explore and prototype something you've always dreamt of.

I can't speak for the poster, but to me, there's no joy in either because, plan or not, it doesn't feel like I am the one building it. If I got someone (AI or human) to build a castle in Minecraft to my specifications, regardless of how detailed those specs are, it wouldn't feel like I built anything. The sense of accomplishment is just gone.

Honestly, I think I'd rather be the one getting specs and figuring out how to implement them than the other way around.

It makes you less valuable and your job less secure because as LLMs improve, the level of knowledge/skill required goes down, thus putting more people at the level of "good enough", which is generally what companies optimize for over time with regards to hiring (least amount for good enough).

> There are projects I now start without thinking twice that I never would have considered a few years ago.

I'm sick of seeing this argument because it's not as persuasive as you think. If you were incapable of doing it before, why would I ever trust that you could properly evaluate the result? Even if I did, it's still like saying, "I never would've been able to do this project without a subordinate that knew how to do it, now look at me!" Okay? So why would I choose you when it sounds like I could pick anyone with basic programming knowledge to manage the subordinate since I clearly don't need someone with the know-how to do the thing, just someone capable of wrangling a coding agent? Might as well get the cheapest college CS graduate I can find.