fire_lake

Most developers use languages that lack expressivity. LLMs allow them to generate the text faster, bringing it closer to the speed of thought.

Which also fits with how it performs at software engineering (in my experience). Great at boilerplate code, tests, simple tutorials, common puzzles but bad at novel and complex things.

Please move out of the territory of grammar to make room for AI

The problem is potential residents don’t get a say - only the incumbents. The only solution is national level housing policy.

> Users expect near-native responsiveness, even when offline

Do they? I think users are amazed if anything works without internet with modern applications.

There is an F# implementation (Microsoft flavoured ML) called DiffSharp

The post developer era will be the post white collar era.

Surely the level of intellectual difficulty in software engineering is similar to practicing law, medicine, banking… ?

> For example, navigating the complexities of legacy systems and workflows and human interactions needed to keep things working.

Well this sounds delightful! Glad to be free of the thinking and creativity!

TDD is opposed to suffering orientated programming IMO.

What pain does writing the tests first resolve? Tests should only be added when you are scared of making changes or want to support assumptions about how things work.

I have seen this first hand with Bazel. You have lots of Bazel rules that are partial reimplementations of the language specific tooling. It usually works better - until you hit a feature that isn’t supported.

Probably means a lack of out of the box rulesets. Writing your own rules to use a build system for a typical project is an unrealistic ask, IMO.

Not a search engineer, but wouldn’t a cache lookup to a previous LLM result be faster than a conventional free text search over the indexed websites? Seems like this could save money whilst delivering better results?

Massive search overlap though - and some questions (like the golf ball puzzle) can be cached for a long time.

This is too simple. Prices float somewhere between cost to produce and value to consumers.

You can’t raise prices beyond value or no one will buy it.

You can’t lower prices below costs (for too long) or you go out of business.

Competition pushes prices down towards costs.

Therefore businesses are always looking for markets with barriers so they can rise prices to value.

Tariffs typically raise costs for all producers, but this only inevitably leads to price increases when competition has driven prices down to near costs.

Unfortunately many staple grocery products fall into this category.