OJFord

This sounds interesting but (from the homepage too) I don't understand how it's different than having it run any other linter?

It ought to be the offspring of a spinster, really.

Pretty stupid to assume familiarity with random suburbs though, unless writing in a local newspaper.

You could say the same about software; clearly it's missing the same 'ease and cheapness of creating the bespoke idea you have'.

ghostty is the .app, perhaps it makes more sense if you imagine some other app, Spotify.app say, imagine for whatever reason it shells out to ls for listing files, it will show as Spotify requesting access not ls.

That was not the claim. They said 'is on the order of months away', not 'was'.

It's a new extreme, but we've always been building of the shoulders of giants.

I think we're saying broadly the same thing. (Old school) Software engineering is fairly unlike most engineering disciplines. We've been both the engineer and the technician (and the latter's taken a lot of time, especially as at lower levels) but now Claude (or equivalent) is capable of being the technician, at least.

I think you figure out different things for yourself; the next generation is going to have 'programming' appeal to them for different reasons. More creatives. More engineers, perhaps, as the practice becomes more about the bigger picture.

I think it can be lots of things: it's like any collector's item, it's a sort of bespoke investment, it's why not, it's if I own the whole thing I can just do as I please and not particularly worry about answering to anyone (e.g. re where I camp or when I fly there).

Forest in particular could well be pure investment though, it's not even a weird one, just capital intensive.

Maybe it's translated, but it's definitely not localised. Captchas are nonsense in the UK, and a lot of Europe browses in English even if not their first language.

This is a lot of words to say 'let your AI tools configure their own environment'.

Sounds exactly like Claude Code (and ilk) tbh. Just a lot of the stakes are lower and a lot of people are more comfortable with it (e.g. there were always people blindly copying and lasting from StackOverflow) I suppose.

> I really don't think it's productive for internet forums to constantly be criticizing language choice when the meaning is clear. Better to respond to the substance of the issue than word choice.

Wtf is the meaning? Means absolutely nothing to me having not seen the apparent announcement last week introducing the obscure term.

Exceptional rather than excellent I'd say, i.e. not necessarily positively exceptional.

Sure but that's just adding more rather than different information really?

Like if the title is Tech Lead, Staff, Principal or whatever there's an (often) unstated focus area. You're saying if you also state that, that's helpful. Yes it is! But if you only state that – Software Engineer, Mobile UX – it's helpful but you're back to having no idea of relative experience or decision-making power.

(If the org is truly flat and the intention is no inequality in 'decision-making power' etc. then fine, I suppose, but that's kind of a different conversation, pretty unusual, and I'm not sure how much I really believe it works (as in, is borne that way) in practice.)

> at my $WORK, we're all software engineers by title, from the lowly interns to the CTO. Still, everybody knows who's who and whom to talk to, depending on the gravity of the issue.

It's not exactly conducive to knowing that if you're a new starter though, is it. I imagine it takes quite a while to get to know, especially outside of your immediate remit.

I suppose `reduce` as built-in is the footgun because it's too easy to reach for. Now if someone doesn't know about `join` perhaps they look up how to do it because they think 'surely there's a better way than a loop without an import'.

Oh, I read that quote the opposite way (wrongly, I think now) –

> > There's an incredible amount of value in simply not worrying if your car will run when you need it to.

> True, being able to know for sure you can get to work (or wherever important) is a huge peace of mind.

If you don't worry about it not because you trust it, but because you just think you'll take it as it comes and don't particularly care if it doesn't start one day, there's also a lot of value in that you could save a lot on used prices and servicing!

I've been reading it, knowing it was largely debunked/retracted but feeling it was a 'classic' I 'ought' to read; I could only really recommend it if what you want is a Kahneman autobiography.

I suppose it means that has to be available to you somehow, the easiest example perhaps being that if you're renting in such a place, the landlord is obligated to ensure access.

They'll need to keep on top of this, or one day it'll look like banning 'word processors' in schools.

Seems like a similar path would be sensible: at first it's a topic for IT, but over time it'll creep into all subjects.

Huh, fortunate for it that GitHub (especially) preserves it then!

I wonder how guaranteed that is, can imagine GH deciding to 'clean' it (how much data can you put there theoretically? Or to close a range of potential security issues) and suddenly relatively niche but genuine uses like jj's change-id are unintentionally not preserved.

'all AI', or just all LLMs/coding assistants? It would be hugely disruptive to the world if no businesses could do any machine learning any more.

I wasn't conversing in the first place, I'm just bored of reading through exchanges where at some point someone says Aha! That's a fallacy! Got you, I win!

What's the name of the fallacy in which one tediously shuts down all conversations by highlighting a named fallacy?

No it doesn't? I've written commit messages ending with 'Co-authored-by [Claude]' a few times, in acknowledgement that it was largely 'vibed' and I only reviewed and committed it. I've never had Claude Code run `git commit`.

The person I replied to described their frustration with a colleague dismissing an error message without reading, not a user. I'm not shaming users not providing clear actionable feedback with stack traces and reproduction steps. I've known fellow software engineers throw their hands up and ask for help because they're 'getting an error', that's what's annoying (because they should know better, ok what have you done before asking me, etc.) not users.

That's even worse than the "I'm getting an error when I ..." type! ("...ok... What's the error?")

Cool! Thanks.