lucasyvas

I’m an advocate for LLMs to code and basically use it for everything now, but just want to say you really nailed that.

It takes effort to debunk because you have to holistically consider what the problem was and actually find the better solution to prove why it’s lacking.

In other words, to debunk it, you have to do the actual work that wasn’t done the first time.

Some people may argue “so what?”

And to that I would just respond that the fast solution implies nobody probably thought about it, which is always risky and generally leads to very bad outcomes. If for no other reason than there is at least no consensus, which for long-term software evolution is deeply problematic.

This has happened many times since this trend has started, and forcing everyone to step back after a year objectively reveals the murder that has been committed that, believe it or not, is not trivially unwound.

In the wrong hands it’s a debt machine that is already killing companies from the inside.

None of you have any idea what you’re talking about - this thread should be nuked. A bunch of arm chair commentators with no actual understanding of the specifics of a negotiation claiming to know otherwise.

Guys, are we poor? I just ran out after a 20 minute refactoring exercise for the next 4.5 hours lol.

Isn’t this flawed anyway? If an application communicates with Claude Code over ACP (like Zed), it works fine?

Instead of using SDKs, this will just shift the third party clients to use ACP to get around it - Claude Code is still under the hood but you’re using a different interface.

This all seems pretty idiotic on their part - I know why they’re trying it but it won’t work. There will always be someone working around it.

Well they don’t have to wait for Rust in the way they said - they’ve already been forked by Turso which has been moving along for a while now. I wouldn’t mind hearing from them how that’s been going.

I also think love is the wrong word here.

But I will agree with the overall sentiment - in most places I’ve worked in software when I thought to myself “fuck that customer”, I was wrong. It was actually our fault because we weren’t meeting their needs or didn’t set a clear boundary on service expectation we were willing to provide to them.

So I see it as more “respect the needs of your customer and be prepared to part ways amicably”.

If you want to call that love, sure. But I think some customers can be abusive as well so I don’t agree with that word choice.

I work in a vertical right now where prospective customers are desperate to switch from the incumbent because of abusive lock-in contracts and poor service levels for obscene pricing based on ancient processes. So, overall, I have to agree with Brian’s sentiment even if I think it comes off as too idealistic.

Did it win? Against just Perl, or everything else?

This was just about the worst case scenario.

Well let me avoid those that don’t understand it. It’s literally Rust 101.

These are all non-issues - don’t allow an end user to determine a serial primary key as always.

And the amount of information it leaks is negligible - they might know the oldest and the newest and there’s an infinite gulf in between.

It’s better and more practical than SERIAL or BIGSERIAL in every way - if you need a random/external ID, add a second column. Done.

This is like saying you don’t like nails because you don’t understand how to use a hammer though. Developers are not understanding how to use the hints properly which is causing you a personal headache. The hints aren’t bad, the programmers are untrained - the acknowledgement of this is the first step into a saner world.

> Among the requirements of the DMA is that Apple ensures that headphones made by other brands will work with iPhones. It said this has been a block on it releasing its live translation service in the EU as it allows rival companies to access data from conversations, creating a privacy problem.

This sounds bogus right? If all the headphones can do is transmit audio via first party operating system features how is this creating a data privacy issue? How are headphones going to exfiltrate data unless they have their own Wi-Fi connection or application that can serve as a bridge? Just disallow both.

We all work at companies and know how it works - you get away with what you can. You bet wrong and nobody will believe otherwise. If it was a mistake, it’s fireable.

You could make money off of this if you are able to pair willing manufacturers to realistic and popular ideas that get generated. It could become a real market place.

Hilarious project.

Edit: I did both Mouthwash Ramen and Time Machine to the Present. I’m now addicted to this, thanks.