mihaic

I have no idea how Jetbrains are dropping the ball so hard now with agentic coding.

I still use their IDE, but I would love to see a realy native view on Claude Code, that actually shows a preview of an image I pasted for instance, in a view that feels native to the IDE.

It's not really clear to me what's so (figuratively) groundbreaking about this, especially given that Catalhuyuk already shows similar care for the dead not much later.

My general gripe with results like this is that it seems to be interpreted in a biased way by the people that already use psychoactive drugs, who want to argue for them in the modern world.

I do agree that drugs were often needed for people to ensure the hardships of civilization (alcohol is not just a disinfectant). My main problem though is that this is too often used as an argument to shove a bunch of drugs in the general population, when we maybe could achieve some better results by just improving society.

The people that take psylocibin/mescalin/whatever always tell other how much it expanded their mind, yet often they seem just as narrow minded to me as they did before, just in a different way

I would like that, inside a powerful IDE like the Jetbrains ones though.

> We are users.

In a dual role, I would say that the most impactful aspect (being a developer) matters more.

> Nobody writes a WYSIWYG word processor in a TUI.

But at the same time people write all sorts of other apps that could hugely benefit from a GUI. I seems like if the output itself is not graphical, TUI-enthusiasts won't acknowledge the advantages of a GUI layer, while only bringing in arguments why they can implemented poorly.

GUIs have a much higher surface to be done wrong, so standards are higher. But there's still a decision that needs to be weighed carefully, and many developers seems to simply jump on the TUI bandwagon just because it's easier.

I don't get your argument. Can't you separate your input box from your execution engine?

The people that keep arguing for TUIs for everything seem like religious fundamentalists that can't be convinced with any argument that user interfaces should be about the user, and need to adapt to the task at hand.

Every time I use Claude Code, I'm wondering why the hell I'm regressing to the level of a machine. I paste an image that I want fixed, and I don't see the preview of it. I can't cut or edit text somewhere in the middle of a long sentence like in a normal user interface. I can't visualize any helpful graphics, not even Latex. I'm forced to interface like a machine when I'm a human being.

Why can't developers understanding that GUIs and TUIs both have their usage, it just depends on the task?

I'm fine to use vim over ssh into a server, just don't force me to edit fine typography with it.

As a person who has actually helped friends with depression, I can totally understand on the other hand where Karrot_Kream is coming from.

I think he wrote enough for an internet comment, and anyone should probably ask for more context instead of jumping to a negative conclusion.

Maybe I'm projecting a preference for something that humans have always done. But are you sure you're not trying to normalize your own unnatural preference?

I'm sorry, but this is like saying "online sex is real sex". I'm sure some people can get the same stimulation, but it very much isn't the same.

Humans need other humans, in flesh and blood in front of them. Bonding needs a physical presence. That's the only way our social processes have evolved.

Given the sociability crisis and how having online friends can still have benefits, it's fine to paint them as something good, but they shouldn't be mistaken for the real thing, and this sort of ideas hide away our unnatural modern lifestyle.

I made a Gmail account in 2004. I'm still periodically asked for my birthday, just so Google knows I'm over 18. The stated purpose is almost always an excuse for more data.

Why Bertha von Suttner and not someone like Dag Hammarskjold for instance? Why not my grandmother? She brokered peace between all our neighbours.

When you propose someone, the burden of proof is on you to say why that specific option should be chosen, instead of anything else possible.

The people choosing these banknotes put their office buildings on the money. They also seemed to have a gender quota, and have put on the 200 euro someone who is unknown to most Europeans (Marie Curie and Maria Callas were popular on the other hand).

Honestly, I enjoy plenty of benefits from the EU, but this non-representative style of decision-making makes me understand the EU-haters.

I have a feeling that being transgressive is universal, but the form of expression is cultural, with independent convergence to some common patterns.

For instance, in Romania I've noticed that the slang term for penis is written far more frequently than a crude drawing of it. I've also seen probably more drawn breasts than dicks as well.

You're basically saying that since open source projects can be reused by others, the people making closed source projects shouldn't complain when the same thing happens to them.

Everyone posting on Stack Overflow knew it would be public and free. Book authors put an explicit copyright notice, which includes derivations of their work.