diogolsq

Well, the name only points to the fact that there was a ford (a crossing) on the River Thames where oxen used to cross.

Nothing suggests it would have been free — in fact, if I owned a ford (a shallow crossing point) running through my property, you can bet I would charge for it.

Not that I like Goodreads — I don’t even have an account — but I always check the rating. Anything above 4 out of 5 with thousands of reviews is usually worth reading.

It’s very easy to filter out the weeds: read the classics and any book that breaks through the noise with consistently high reviews. We don’t need to waste time on low-quality literature or AI-generated slop.

"I know that I know nothing" wasn't coined by a regular joe after all.

Law of diminishing returns.

We’re talking about less than a 10% performance gain, for a shitload of data, time, and money investment.

I agree in the sense that if everyone did their part, the outcome would be meaningful.

This is not to say that traps don’t make your house more livable. Once, I lived in a house connected to a forest in Brazil—no real neighbors, and a shitload of mosquitoes.

I did buy some fancy traps with UV lights and fans, and oh boy, I killed a shitload of them. Not to say I fully solved the mosquito problem, but I significantly reduced the bites. My wife is allergic to them, so she’s a great sensor—if there’s even one mosquito in the room, she knows.

Good point.

Looking ahead, Search will become a de facto LLM chatbot, if it isn't already.

Portuguese and German are like that.

You’ve never seen the word before, but when reading it for the first time, you’ll probably pronounce it correctly.

English is awful, but French takes the crown on this one—though more because it has the same pronunciation for many different words and written forms.

English, on the other hand, the alphabet doesn’t map well.

Mood and flood both have “oo”, yet each is pronounced differently. You need to know the word beforehand to know exactly how it’s pronounced.

1. about looking artificial.

Granted, it is not only summaries that go into the description—how to test, if there is any pre-deploy or post-deploy setup, any concerns, external documentation, etc.

Less is more. A summary serves to clarify, not to endlessly add useless information.

⸻

2. about the usefulness of summaries.

Summaries always provide better information—straight to the point—than commits (which are historical records). This applies to any type of information.

When you’re reporting a problem by going through historical facts, it can lead to multiple narratives, added complexity, and convoluted information.

Summaries that quickly deliver the key points clearly and focus only on what’s important offer a better way to communicate.

If the listener asks for details, they already have a clear idea of what to expect. A good summary is a good introduction to what you are going to see in the commits messages and in the code changes.

______________________

3.About multiple Prs.

Summary helps to clarify what is scope creep (be it a refactor or unrelated code to the ticket);

it make it easier for the reviewer demand a split in multiple PRs.

examples: A non-summary PR/MR might lead to the question—“WHY is this code here?"

"he touched a class here, was he fixing something that the test missed out ? or is just a refactor?"

_______________

As a reviewer you can get those information by yourself, although summary helps you to get it much quicker.

Code review has become the new bottleneck, since it’s the layer that prevents sloppy AI-generated code from entering the codebase.

One thing I do that helps clean things up before I send a PR is writing a summary. You might consider encouraging your peers to do the same.

## What Changed?

Functional Changes:

      - New service for importing data

      - New async job for dealing with z.

Non-functional Changes:

       - Refactoring of Class X

        - Removal of outdated code

It might not seem like much, but writing this summary forces you to read through all the changes and reflect. You often catch outdated comments, dead functions left after extractions, or other things that can be improved—before asking a colleague to review it.

It also makes the reviewer’s life easier, because even before they look at the code, they already know what to expect.

One more reason to activate key rotation.

Late reply.

There are two groups:

1. The ones who go after the news (a minority).

2. The ones who don’t even bother reading the article (the vast majority).

From group 1, we have those numbers.

Yes, potentially those 53% could read the news in full in another place and avoid falling for the misinformation.

So, out of the people who read, I know for a fact that 12% — plus some chunk of the 53% — might be able to clarify the misinformation.

The numbers still stack up for the people who fall for misinformation in headlines.

That shows the danger of the clickbait economy.

A weird, provocative headline creates misinformation.

Of the people who try to access the article, only 12% actually read it (1% who pay, and 11% who bypass the paywall). Another 53% look for the information elsewhere, which may or may not clarify the misinformation.

And those are only the ppl that tries to read the news, the majority of ppl doesn't even bother trying to open the news link.

Spot check:

"OpenAI has claimed that as of December 2025, ChatGPT has 300 million weekly active users generating 1 billion messages per day. "

**should be December of 2024 **, my brain bugged there.

Those zealots, gosh.

Nonsense. When AI gets stuck in a suboptimal topology, it’s the human who nudges it out.

How will you maintain code if you’re not even able to read it?

Using AI to read introduces noise with every iteration. Did you see that trend of people asking AI to reproduce someone self over 70 times? The noise adds up—and the original meaning shifts.

AI is non deterministic.