I am going to give a predictable rebuttal. Many of these articles come from a place of fear and uncertainty, which is completely understandable. We ascribe value to the things we love, we love coding and therefore coding is valuable. But if it's commoditized how can it be valuable anymore? This alone is enough to shake the tree of rationality and most articles, including this one, set out with a mission of bashing a force they don't really understand. One signature of these articles, as I have noticed, is that they talk about AI writing code fairly reasonably but then insist that without a clear mental view of it, how could it ever be understood, or debugged, or optimised? This simply illuminates the lack of experience with the tools. Anyone who's used Ralph or Taches skills will understand this is a non-problem because well-attuned, AI-first codebases are actually very good at debugging, optimising, and will happily relay to you the model they've used, so that your grey matter can understand it.
This is a bit too "plugged in" for my liking. If I am in line for coffee, it's usually respite away from work, not an opportunity to do more. However, I do love the tmux + worktree + claude setup. I use this now and I know a few peers who do too and it's very enabling. This is what work feels like these days: cycling through agents, each working on a task, checking their work, unblocking them.
This comment is harmfully lazy. Is your position that a three word prompt is equivalent to armchair trolls goi g through the funnel - finding a way to obtain DRM-controlled software, learning that software to sufficient levels to understand the tools required of how to perform something akin to a deep fake, and then somehow gaining the art talent and experience required to put it into practice? Did I just get baited?
As some one who constantly chats to AI about an array of topics, I can immediately see the value in this. Thank you for building this.
As other commentators have already said, I also predict a frosty reception but please don't lose heart. This is cool and will make people become better writers.
I actually really like the idea of a Digital Services Provider Ombudsman, who you can go to if you feel like you've been wronged by a big tech corp. They have a "way in" that consumers potentially don't, and they have the capacity to levy fines in certain circumstances. I love this! What's preventing this from happening, other than no governmental pressure to make it happen? I might write to my MP...
But you won't get them to understand these points unless you're willing to fix the image problem and then invest in better branding. Telling people they're wrong doesn't sell things.
> Running someone else's patch set of Arch is the easiest way to have a terrible Linux experience. Having a nice interface to lull people into believing what they are getting is a professional product and then handing them a fundamentally broken system, where some hobbyists have patched a proper Linux distro so bad, that you are not even allowed to ask for help on the Arch forum is down right devious and presents the worst of the Linux world.
Except, this isn't the experience for the majority of users moving to Cachy, Bazzite, Zorin, whatever. What they're getting is a fresh, usable experience specifically in the "flavor" they care about.
Linux, and especially Arch, has an image problem, and it's the reason, despite how good these base distros might be, that people aren't coming. It takes a clever bit of branding and a marginalisation of all the gatekeeping (just like you're trying to do right now) to let users finally think "actually, maybe this is something I can use".
Congrats to the team at Pipedream. We started using the product quite early on and now I would say it's an integral part of some of our systems. I don't know much about Workday but to me the connection between the two orgs, or gauging how they will complement one another, isn't super obvious. It makes me nervous. Tod, please don't let Workday erode what Pipedream has become. Please don't let them enshittify it. Please don't let them make confusing changes to the plans, in an attempt to extract more value from us, your customers. We're people, not spectres with wallets. Pipedream is good at what it does. Focus on being good and everyone will be happy.
Ugh, there is just something so satisfying about developer cynicism. It gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling.
I basically agree with most of what the author is saying here, and I think that my feeling is that most developers are at least aware that they should resist technical self-pleasure in pursuit of making sure the business/product they're attached to is actually performing. Are there really people out there who still reach for Meta-scale by default? Who start with microservices?
Without meaning to sound flippant or dismissive, I think you're overthinking it. By the sounds of it, agents aren't offering what you say you need. What are _are_ offering is the boilerplate, the research, the planning etc. All the stuff that's ancillary. You could quite fairly say that it's in the pursuit of this stuff where details and ideas emerge and I would agree, but sometimes you don't need ideas. You need solutions which are run-of-the-mill and boring.
Also assumes that the bots coexist on the server. My first thought would just be to connect them like any other client, with compute of their own so the server doesn't even know it's a bot.
I see this sentiment in my colleagues, my friends, my children, everywhere, and it makes me so sad. I want to say something witty and sharp about "neoliberal global capitalism" or something... Weren't the successful economic foundations of the west built on hard-working, honest businesses who, in a lot of cases, did it because they felt some connection to their craft and the customers they served? Maybe that's just a romantic illusion.
This feels similar to articles with titles such as "Why every developer should learn Assembly" or "Relying on NPM packages considered harmful". I appreciate the core of truth inside the sentiment, and the author isn't _wrong_, but it won't matter over time. AI coding ability will improve, whether it's writing, debugging or planning. It will be good enough to produce 90% of the solution with very little input, and 90% is more than enough to go to market, so it will. And yes, it won't be optimal or totally secure, or the abstractions might be questionable but...how is that really different than most real software projects anyway?
This is why it needs implementing systemically, and not ad hoc. If no one has social media, no one is being ostracised. If only one person opts out then yes, they risk being ostracised.
This is very cool. I am fortunate enough to have access to a pump and have been hacking closed loops for a few years now using software like Nightscout, AndroidAAPS and xDrip+. My understanding is that none of these are exclusive to pump users, they just work a little easier with them. Maybe there is some interplay with these tools that you can leverage?
This is critical and often overlooked when it comes to fully appreciating socio-economic factors that influence a person's capacity to "succeed". People with the resources are simply allowed to fail and recover more times than those without.
> 1. The sound mix has a huge dynamic range now, and lots of action scenes are mixed in with quiet conversation. Set the volume down, and you miss the dialogue. Set the volume up, and you wake up the neighbors.
I was once told, by a salesperson in a TV store that this was essentially "by design" and that the solution they're taught to present is to "buy a soundbar". From his understanding, in the quest to get thinner TV manufacturers sacrificed built-in speaker size and quality, which results in the effect you describe. I am not sure how much is sales patter and how much is truth...but I bought a sound bar!