patrick451

If you need to people to think out loud on the spot, go hire salesman. A person's ability to do this in real time has zero correlation with their ability to actually do engineering and communicate on technical matters. Real communication encompasses more than verbal stream of consciousness.

This is a huge problem with our legal system. Either make the law simple and absolute or don't make it a law. Intent should play absolutely zero role. Otherwise, all you get is a corrupt system of lawfare that interprets the intentionally ambiguous law to suit those in power.

If there were fewer laws, there would be less to disambiguate.

None of it

There is no point discussing these minutia, ever. Just ban discussing them in PRs and then you don't need an opinionated bot rife with false positives to "fix" them.

The boom in datacenter construction is driven mostly by the AI boom and most of us are sick everything AI too. We don't want to read AI slop, watch AI videos, talk AI customer service or visit a vibe coded website.

The vast majority of Americans prefer roads being dedicated to vehicles. I live in a town that is stealing drivable roadway for bike lanes. It's a total wast of tax dollars. There is never anybody in this bike lanes. Because even in this flaming blue, bike friendly city, people drive because it's just better.

> Which is really no different from someone choosing to terminate.

If you std::abort(), you'll get a useful stack trace in the core dump. If you crash from an unhandled exception, you don't. That's a pretty huge difference and is one of the reasons exceptions suck.

No, they are doing everything they can to ensure that only the people who are legally allowed to vote are the ones voting.

You are failing to make an argument for why stable sorting is objectively the correct choice. Just because something doesn't match your expectations doesn't make it wrong.

> Users don’t care whether the code was written by AI or by hand, or which framework you used. They care that the product works.

If I wanted to care about what users want, I would have been a founder or salesman, not an engineer.

> Sure, both languages offer both generic comparison sorts†. But the defaults matter and as always in C++ the defaults are wrong, here it's reflected in naming.

Why, exactly, is the c++ std::sort "wrong"? There are tradeoffs both ways. You happen to prefer stable sorting to speed, but that is a preference not an objective fact.

I work in a FAANG. My sense is that most of my teammates are loving the AI. Personally, I hate the AI tools and the hype around them and what it has turned this job into. My own morale has never been lower in the 7 years I've been there and I'll probably try to switch careers or semi retire sooner or later.

We should not treat this as an acceptable strategy. If we do not have a viable mitigation for the risks of AI, then AI should be banned from public usage, just like nuclear weapons.

Exactly. At the very least, we should be treating AI like nuclear weapons. It can exist but it should be locked away and never used.