Please put in the effort to write (in the post) a synposis of what you’re linking to, and why you think it’s worth visiting, before we go there.

The main argument, and it’s a strong one, is: YAGNI (You Ain’t Gonna Need It).

Compared to defining a function as synchronous (the default), there is a significant cost to defining a function to be async: Its signature is different, therefore every caller to that interface must also be aware the function is async; test cases must handle not just a simple return value, but a Promise; etc. etc.

So, don’t impose that cost unless you already know it’s needed, today. If you don’t need it today, the most likely expectation is You Ain’t Gonna Need It, at least not any time soon. So don’t pay the cost now for something you likely won’t get a benefit from.

I donate to a number of free-software projects via https://liberapay.com/ which lets me control the individual donation amounts and frequencies, and pay from a single account that I top up periodically.

When approached about allowing me to donate to them via Liberapay, I’ve had several people respond positively and set up their end of the deal. It often just takes a friendly conversation.

No. If an established dev leans on LLMs for coding and shovels it into the main branch, they have abdicated their responsibility and trashed their reputation. We get to point that out

without any obligation to do their work for them.

Passkeys are a potentially good technology, that is frequently implemented in an insecure and user-hostile way.

Good: a standard way for authentication that can be implemented in common on client and server, such that the user doesn’t need to know a secret.

Bad: Most OS and platform vendors breathlessly implemented this standard using their proprietary APIs and making it practically infeasible (read: impossible for typical end-users, therefore they won’t, therefore insecure) to attempt syncing your passkeys outside their walled garden.

It is entirely feasible to implement passkeys in a way that users are in control and can freely move between devices and operating systems. But many implementations make that impossible, while still calling their implementation “passkey”.

So, we need to reject any implementation which puts any barrier to the user freely migrating and syncing all their devices regardless of platform.

any kind of undocumented subversive behaviour in your thing.

Fortunately, this behaviour is explicitly documented.

Without this, we wouldn’t be sure the agent does a good job!

I’ve read that headline three times now, and it doesn’t communicate what the heck the article is about.

I liberated the story for you (it’s Reddit) Thank you.

For those who want the full thread, here is an anonymous interface to it: https://safereddit.com/r/confession/comments/1q1mzej/im_a_developer_for_a_major_food_delivery_app_the/

The author made this story available to Medium members only.

Please either update the post with the URL that gets around this login-wall; or, remove the post because the article is not on the public web.

When I’m using AI for coding, I find myself constantly making little risk assessments about whether to trust the AI, how much to trust it, and how much work I need to put into the verification of the results. And the more experience I get with using AI, the more honed and intuitive these assessments become.

For a system that has such high cost (to the environment, to the vendor, to the end user in the form of subscription), that’s a damningly low level of reliability.

If my traditional code editor’s code completion feature is even 0.001% unreliable – say it emits a name that just isn’t in my code base – that feature is broken and needs to be fixed. If I have to start doubting whether the feature works every time I use it, that’s not an acceptable tool to rely on.

Why would we accept far worse reliability in a tool that consumes gargantuan amounts of power, water, political effort, and comes with a high subscription fee?

No.

So, it was gambling, then.

Revenue going up, hiring going down, layoffs every quarter and a big push for everyone to use AI. But at the same time basically no real success story from all this increased AI usage. Probably just me, but I just don’t get it.

No, you’ve got it: Revenue increases, short term, when personnel costs are cut, through layoffs and hiring freezes.

The story told (“workers must return to the office to sit on teleconference all day” prompting more of them to quit, or “your job can be done by robots”, or whatever) only needs to make enough sense that the stock holders are satisfied the executives have a sane explanation for sudden loss of workers. Otherwise it might look like the executives are panicking!

Stop trying to trap people inside “the app”. If “the app” is designed to keep people inside and not visit other sites, that’s a reader-hostile pattern and a publisher-hostile pattern.

The founding model of using Reddit is “the front page of the internet”. That requires that the rest of the internet is still there, not that the rest of the internet gets sucked into Reddit.

10×s developers who could produce 0 code without it

Let me see; ten times nothin’, add nothin’, carry the nothin’…

The spec is so complex that it’s not even possible to know which regex to use

Yes. Almost like a regex is not the correct tool to use, and instead they should use a well-tested library function to validate email addresses.

Magit is what allowed me to finally commit to switching to Git full time.

It’s such an excellent front-end for Git that I’ve known numerous workmates learn Emacs just to use Magit.

Now we are beginning to see agents: systems that aspire to greater autonomy and can work in “teams” or use tools to accomplish complex tasks.

Given that an “agent” can be assigned work and carry it out autonomously: no, we are not yet seeing any agents. Every one of these bots requires close attention by a human to weed out the huge quantity of mistakes it generates. That’s not an “agent” by any useful definition:

Both Anthropic and OpenAI, for example, prescribe active human supervision to minimise errors and risks.

Right. So, it’s a bot which even the vendor recommends you don’t leave it to work autonomously. Not an agent.

In other news: “self driving” that requires continuous human monitoring and intervention, by multiple humans per vehicle, is not self driving.

Just because the hype marketing of tech corporations bleats a term into the media, does not mean they’ve got anything that actually does what they say it does.

No kidding there’s a bubble. When it pops - the tech’s not going anywhere. […] No need for a wall of text, over and over and over.

He’s making the point that the entire tech economy is dominated by this bubble, and gargantuan amounts of money is tied up in this with no hope of getting any useful or profitable business.

Yet the mainstream press continues to coddle the egos of Musk and Altman and Zuckerberg and Nadella and Bezos and Pichai, as though their business use of this technology is worth the trillions of investment value they have attracted. It’s a fantasy. While that continues, the message is not getting through and the bubble continues to inflate.

For as long as the bubble goes on inflating, yes there is urgent need to keep repeating that message until the mainstream tech and financial press starts accepting it as reality (because that’s what investors read), so that people stop hooking our economies into that bubble.