readitalready

You don't actually think I look at the code, do you?

Every project should have a custom linter for their tech stack. It would check for not just syntax errors, but architectural choices as well as taste guidelines.

Whenever the LLM writes bad code, I add it to my linter to check against in the future.

Some of these checks have caught thousands of the same error, even with the latest Opus 4.7 writing the original code.

The real change is in generation side, and now the spec docs are LLM generated JSON based on other spec docs or human prompts. LLMs seem to write JSON better than Markdown or YAML, if you tell it to follow a schema.

The most important thing is that I can run static analysis on a structured format. This is important even for my spec documents. I can write data fields and have static analysis analyze it. For example, to confirm database fields match across various spec documents, etc.. The static analysis is also why you use JSON/XML instead of HTML, since you can now have your own custom schema.

Also don't use YAML, as that's far more unreliable. (If you chop a YAML file in half, it's still valid)

Intel is now on its way to become another AI chip company. They have no incentive to supply Apple either.

linters statically check code and provide deterministic recommendations. LLMs are used to make judgement. I specifically write my linters for my project to make recommendations for LLMs.

This is how you save on token usage, so your LLMS aren't wasting tokens on static analysis that a linter could do for free.

That's at least how I make my linters.

Your linter should identify all issues - including architectural and stylistic choices - and the AI agents will immediately repair them.

It's about 1000x faster than a human code at repairing its own mess.

There is no scenario where not having a fab is beneficial.

Apple will have to build their own fabs, whether they like it or not. And they will need to make it competitive if they want to stay in business.

They are literally being limited by TSMC (as well as the DRAM makers) because they don't have their own fabs.

You could.

Or you could have no fab and no supply of chips for your business.

"Real men have fabs." - Jerry Sanders, first CEO of AMD.

Actually, AMD, Nvidia, and Apple need to build their own fabs. Maybe Google, Amazon, and Meta too.

People really do think too highly of themselves.

That's more work than even following someone, because it asks for confirmation or pops up a separate modal to unfollow, which it doesn't do for following someone. And so I don't even bother.

This leads to stale social networks and algorithmic timelines.

Having fading connections equates relevance with popularity.

If you want a business model, require payment for long-term subscriptions or large celebrity/news accounts, but you have to overcome the network effect first. Maybe have a dozen or so permanent connections to start with, like MySpace's 8 priority friends.