drewbug01

If you actually clicked through to their homepage, I imagine you would find the “what does homebrew do” section quite enlightening.

> Your "clever" coworker can't sneak a seventeen-layer abstraction into the codebase because the language won't let him.

Oh boy, the author has clearly not seen some of the Go codebases I’ve seen.

> but that’s part of why it is so valuable

“part of” leaves a lot of room for each of us to insert our own definition of “valuable” here.

There is no shortcut to art, but that’s part of why it is so valuable to society and so rewarding to create.

But don’t let that discourage you. If you want to make your own art, keep working at it. You will always get better with time and practice. It takes a long time and even the best artists frequently feel like their work isn’t good enough. But dedication and practice will pay off in time.

> EDIT: downvotes - why? - I think this is a good idea (I'd do it for my sites if outages were an issue).

Because that's a monumental amount of work, and extraordinarily difficult to retrofit into a system that wasn't initially designed that way. Not to mention the unstated requirement of mirroring traffic to actually exercise that system (given the tendency of bugs to not show up until something actually uses the system).

Did you come to that conclusion after watching the videos, or just after reading statements from DHS?

Why do you think it’s so important to get in this guy’s head, and to give him this graceful excuse of “maybe he just panicked?”

Obviously someone panicked. We can clearly see they did not line them up and actually shoot them with a firing squad.

But what is the point of this thought exercise? Where does it lead? To more “training” for the agents?

The whole thing is illegitimate and immoral. There is no need to engage with what was going on in the guy’s head. We are way, way too far past that point.

“secession territory”

Honest question: what territory do you think we are in now that is better than “secession territory?”

Honest to god question. Federal agents are executing citizens in the streets!

> If you say two different and contradictory things, and do not very explicitly resolve them, and say which one is the final answer, you will get blamed for both things you said, and you will not be entitled to complain about it, because you did it to yourself.

Our industry is held back in so many ways by engineers clinging to black-and-white thinking.

Sometimes there isn’t a “final” answer, and sometimes there is no “right” answer. Sometimes two conflicting ideas can be “true” and “correct” simultaneously.

It would do us a world of good to get comfortable with that.

> If your metric is an LLM that can copy/paste without alterations, and never hallucinate APIs, then yeah, you'll always be disappointed with them.

I struggle to take comments like this seriously - yes, it is very reasonable to expect these magical tools to copy and paste something without alterations. How on earth is that an unreasonable ask?

The whole discourse around LLMs is so utterly exhausting. If I say I don't like them for almost any reason, I'm a luddite. If I complain about their shortcomings, I'm just using it wrong. If I try and use it the "right" way and it still gets extremely basic things wrong, then my expectations are too high.

What, precisely, are they good for?

> you

you can’t, they can. Important distinction.

> The more surprising part is the unusual reactions of the other people getting a better picture and context of what I’m explaining without the usual back and forth - which has landed me my fair share of complaints of having to hear mini lectures, but not more than people appreciative of the fuller picture.

It’s not surprising to me at all. People don’t tend to appreciate being lectured at - especially in a conversational context. Moreover, people really don’t like being spoken to as if they’re robots (which is something I’ve started to notice happening more and more in my professional life).

The fact that the author considers these reactions surprising and “unusual” betrays a misunderstanding of (some of) the purposes of communication. Notably, the more “human” purposes.

There is a world of difference between “passing a state law that directly contradicts federal law” and “declining to proactively enforce federal laws in ways that are not required by those laws.”

To drive the point home: federal immigration laws are already enforced by federal agencies. Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law. There are no federal laws on the books requiring them to do the job of the federal government for them (they could pass one, but they haven’t).

Calling that “nullification” is intellectually dishonest. As you said - “if you don’t like the law, fight to change it.” Don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.