staticassertion

Not really. No one targets F-Droid. If they did, there would be malware. F-Droid barely audits packages at all.

Do you actually believe that UV would be as fast if it were written in Python?

I assume they mean "getting a SOC2 report", which is the part that Delve attempts to automate. The maintenance of controls, adoption of new policy as the company evolves, etc, is what someone will do in the full time role and that Delve et al would do nothing to assist with.

A lot of dubious claims here.

1. "Most open source repositories do have eyes on the code"

Seems basically impossible that this is true.

"Debian often has separate maintainers who maintain patches specific to Debian." does not support the previous statement. Debian cherry picks patches, yes.

2. "It's not a coincidence that Linux distros are much less susceptible to malware in their official repositories."

Not only is it not a coincidence, it seems to not even be true.

3. "The play store will always have significant amounts of malware, so this entire conversation is moot."

This seems to just be "a problem can not be totally solved, therefor making progress on this problem is pointless to attempt". I... just reject this?

Not shilling, your points are just bad. I could just as easily say "You are one person who makes money, therefor you are always bad". Silly.

Your argument is basically "If the Android team cared about user safety then Google would shut down as a business to support them". It's nonsense.

Total nonsense. Google is a large company with different teams that have different goals.

It absolutely has to do with keeping people safe. You not caring isn't relevant.

No one is auditing. Behavior analysis works on closed source software too.

Instead the megacorp forces open source licensing, which doesn't solve any of this shit anyway lol

That's absurd.

Your post is very badly written. It's confusing and starts off with a totally weird comment about wasting revolutionary capacity. Expect downvotes.

It's extremely early to say if things are rushed or not. It's unsurprising that newer software has an influx of vulnerabilities initially, it'll be a matter of retrospectively evaluating this after that time period has passed.

I have literally no clue what point you're trying to string together. I tried to refocus things to the topic at hand but you're just saying completely irrelevant things. What is your point?

And what do you derive from that fact? The position is that coding is only one portion of the job. "But there's a coding interview" was used to rebut this position. I have pointed out that the coding interview is a fraction of the procses, once again indicating that the job involves much more than coding.

So you saying "but there's a coding interview" again... who cares? Why is that relevant?

FWIW I am definitely someone who uses AI. I have been using it for a few years now. There's no question that models have improved. I'd say the biggest leap was around the ChatGPT 3.5 -> 4.0, which radically reduced hallucination problems. The big issue of "it just made up a module that doesn't exist" more or less went away at that point. This was the big leap from "spits out text that might help you" to "can produce value".

Since then it has been incremental. I would say the big win has been that models degrade more slowly as context grows. This means, especially for heavily vibecoded-from-scratch projects, that you hit the "I don't even know wtf this is anymore" wall way later, maybe never if you're steering things properly.

I think because you can avoid hitting that wall for longer, people see this as radically different. It's debatable whether that's true or not. But in terms of just what the model does, like how it responds to prompts, I genuinely think it is only marginally better. And again, I think benchmarks confirm this, and I quite like Fodor's analysis on benchmarking here[0].

I use these models daily and I try new models out. I think that people over emphasize "model did something different" or "it got it right" when they switch over to a new model as "this is radically better", which I believe is simply a result of cognitive bias / poor measurement.

[0] https://jamesfodor.com/2025/06/22/line-goes-up-large-languag...

> On the contrary it's suspicious if I happened to guess exactly right with much less data and so have the same conclusion after learning more.

No it isn't? If I guess what time it is and then look and see that it's around sunset, which is evidence towards my initial guess being right, it is not "suspicious". This is just a fundamentally broken model of evidence.

> Actually I think it probably is suspicious to have the exact same opinion after studying something over a long period of time.

This seems really odd, probably fundamentally incorrect. "Believing something over time means it is less likely that you are engaging in good faith"? Totally insane take.

I have experience and the gap is exaggerated imo. edit: And I think benchmarks largely support this, and benchmarks are already biased to overstate LLM performance IMO.

Eh, I don't know. I mean, are we seeing better models now? Of course. But are they truly leaps and bounds better? No, and I get confused by people saying that they are. They're better but not like... 10x better.

And when people were studying ChatGPT 3.5, everyone would go "Oh, but that wasn't 4!", and when people talk about Opus 4.5 they go "4.6 is so much better!".

My personal position right now is that people are extremely bad at evaluating model output/ changes in model capabilities. Model benchmarks do not reflect the position that models are just 10x better than they were a year ago, but with how people discuss them you'd think that 10x was underselling it.

I think that makes sense, the rest of your comment is definitely true.

I'm genuinely blown away at the attitude lately that developers spend their time programming/ our primary value is code. I guess because we tend to be organizationally isolated people just have no idea? But like... it's so absurd to anyone who does the job. It's like thinking that PM's primary role is assigning tickets, just so obviously false.

I think there's some resentment. I've seen repeatedly now people essentially celebrating that "tech bros" are finally going to see their salaries crash or whatever, it's pretty sick but I've noticed this quite a lot.

It's well understood that programming interviews are a pretty shitty tool. They're a proxy for understanding if you have basic skills required to understand a computer. Notably, most companies don't rely on these alone, they have behavioral questions, architecture questions, etc. Have you ever done an interview at these companies you're talking about? They're 8 hours lol maybe 1 is spent programming.

But it's just very obvious to any software engineer worth anything that code is just one part of the job, and it's usually somewhere in the middle of a process. Understanding customer requirements, making technical decisions, maintaining the codebase, reviewing code changes/ providing feedback, responding on incidents, deciding what work to do or not to do, deciding when a constraint has to be broken, etc. There are a billion things that aren't "typing code" that an engineer does every day. To deny this is absurd to anyone who lives every day doing those things.

> LLMs can build anything.

This is only possibly true if one of two things are true:

1. All new software can be made up of of preexisting patterns of software that can be composed. ie: There is no such thing as "novel" software, it's all just composition of existing software.

2. LLMs are capable of emergent intelligence, allowing them to express patterns that they were not trained on.

I am extremely skeptical that either of these is true.

There is evidence of that, but more importantly, it wouldn't occur to me to write "wanna add email support". That's not my natural voice.

> It's always easier to blame the prompt and convince yourself that you have some sort of talent in how you talk to LLMs that other's don't.

Well, it's easily the simplest explanation, right?

> I know for a fact that "everything" in that persons mind is very limited in scope.

I agree, and I think it's quite telling what people are impressed by. Someone elsewhere said that Opus 4.6 is a better programmer than they are and... I mean, I kinda believe it, but I think it says way more about them than it does about Opus.

I've heard this before and seen no official source confirming it, and most sources seem to indicate otherwise. Do you have any source?

edit: Okay so I was able to confirm the 2024 timeline from the Washington Post and the US Mint does confirm the narrative.

Very sick of these stupid, polarizing headlines. Flat out misinformation.

> But since you are a hacker and have to be always right, you have just descended into personal attacks now.

The irony of this statement is so silly. Once again, you clearly have hang ups.

I've explained everything I have to say.

Do you have a source for that? Certainly things like compute and other services that I'm aware of are objectively cheaper, so I'm curious what has gone up.

Did it? AWS seems to be getting cheaper over time, not more expensive.