k1w1

> if you received the information about the RCEs without the information about the embargo, then you did not break the embargo.

Doesn't responsible disclosure also apply? If I become aware of a vulnerability that doesn't seem to be widely known shouldn't I first attempt to report the issue responsibly?

In this case it appears the OP did know about the embargo "A reliable source has indicated an announcement is scheduled". I think that with security disclosures it is assumed they are not supposed to be publicized before the announcement, but if he hadn't known about the announcement and only heard about the RCEs, then publicly announcing their existence doesn't seem OK either.

The big question is where the libraries of the future will come from. If AI building just creates all of the new code in one place, rather than take the time to extract and document reusable parts, then will we lose the open source environment that makes highly complex software possible today?

> But the final boss is, and always will be, maintainability.

I think this article misses the mark in a few ways, but this is the biggest. I see AI as the ultimate solution for maintenance, in three ways:

* AI does a great job of refactoring and so tech debt becomes shallow. If something is not architected right, it can be fixed much more easily than ever before. * Bug fixing is also a great AI strength. In the future there won't be a backlog of all the bugs that never got fixed. AI can fix them as quickly as they come in. * AI doesn't get bored, doesn't get tired, and doesn't care how crufty the code is. It is happen to maintain any application without judgement.

I would love to be able to list our product in the Google Play store /s ... but after a year of trying we haven't been able to.

They introduced a phone verification step for the support phone number that you provide. But their apparent assumption is that app authors are individuals or tiny companies. They expect to be able to send a text to the support number, or have it answered instantly by a human to validate the number. Any kind of IVR means the number can't be validated.

I have been going back and forth with their support for a year. It takes months at a time for them to respond, to say "we fixed it try again" and I try again and the process is identical.

Is is annoyingly ironic because I am sure that Google themselves could not pass this process to get listed in the Play Store. Their advice of "just redirect your corporate number to someone's cellphone to get validated" is laugable.

It makes me wonder if remote-first companies will have an advantage in an AI-first world because they must be more intentional about communication. By their very nature remote teams use more written communication and more intentional, and documented, processes. Perhaps the RTO mandates will turn out to be the biggest organizational mistake?

> Why are you asking the token predictor about the tokens it predicted?

I am surprised with this response because it implies this is not an extremely valuable technique. I ask LLMs all the time why they did or output something and they will usually provide extremely useful information. They will help me find where in the prompting I had conflicting or underspecified requirements. The more complex the agent scenario, the more valuable the agent becomes in debugging itself.

Perhaps in this case the problem with hooks is part of the deterministic Claude Code source code, and not under the control of the LLM anyway. So it may not have been able to help.

This is magical. The bike suspension example is so satisfying to play with.

The user interface interactions are so smooth. It is like the first time I used Figma ... but with physics.

I am surprised at the amount of hate for Stack Overflow here. As a developer I can't think of a single website that has helped me as much over the last ten years.

It has had a huge benefit for the development community, and I for one will mourn its loss.

I do wonder where answers will come from in the future. As others have noted in this thread, documentation is often missing, or incorrect. SO collected the experiences of actual users solving real problems. Will AI share experiences in a similar way? In principle it could, and in practice I think it will need to. The shared knowledge of SO made all developers more productive. In an AI coded future there will need to be a way for new knowledge to be shared.

Typescript. I imagine most people writing Rails applications are also writing typescript for front-end code, so being able to use the same muscle memory for Ruby typing seems high desirable. That is the thing that stood out to me when I saw this site: it looks like they are taking the very positive lessons from Typescript and applying them to Ruby.

I agree with other posters here. I don't need everything typed - Ruby's duck typing is an awesome feature - but I do wish that some of the more important interfaces in our code were more strongly self-documenting and enforced.