rddbs

Genuine question I’ve been wanting to ask folks working on different types of things: how are your teams doing agent-assisted code reviews? Not automated reviews, but what techniques and tools are humans using to keep up with the larger volume of PRs that seem to trend larger and larger?

I think a lot of people like myself still want to feel in the loop but I don’t have the right tools to stay on top of the (generally good, productive, and still thoughtful) contributions from peers anymore.

Just because there might exist tradeoffs doesn’t make them matter to someone. If you’re using a Linux distro then you’re already living off thousands of decisions made with tradeoffs and it’s hardly feasible to be informed or care about all of them.

I would have agreed on instinct but everyone replying with which features they actually use seems like it pretty much makes up all the major available features. Maybe having all these features is necessary to appeal to every individual’s needs rather than one power user who uses them all?

Alright I’ll bite. Why do harnesses require so much code?

I care more about hiding AI related articles than I do about AI-authored content in articles. Feels like most of the content on HN is now AI related and it’s just exhausting. Anyone have a way they’re correcting this balance of content, like a browser extension maybe?

One obvious answer is that people probably don’t want to write a whole parser and wire up new steps in their build pipeline just to do something simple like get the name of enum cases as a string.

Without taking a stance on whether in-language meta programming facilities are good or bad, it’s not hard to find examples of cases where people find it useful to have them.

You get to choose between UB, a crash, or handling the error — same as most other languages.

It’s not a reliability issue of the language if as an author of software you choose to crash in your failure handling cases. Claiming otherwise is either disingenuous or a failure to understand what actually happened.

Tangential question for c++ devs: How would this even compile before the author fixed the Sphere* typo in the vector?

How often do folks venture off the happy path with Rust dependencies? Personally I’ve never once found myself in that situation.

The unique difficulties of driving in Miami might be the reason this is a good choice, not the reason it’s a bad one.

The problem with giving each team a repo and an API surface is that you create API boundaries where your organizational boundaries are, not necessary where your service boundaries are. And as your organizational structure evolves over time, your repo and API boundaries lag behind since it’s so difficult to make large scale shifts to the code.

Arc is an atomic (not automatic) reference counter which can be used across threads. Reference counting in general can still be tricky to use when you need cyclical references though, which is what it sounds like the spec has.

Would forcing disclosure of non-authorized parts not address that? If you were willing to pay the premium for authorized parts then you’d have the information to choose the right repair shop.

It’s hard to fault SpaceX for realizing a market opportunity here. If they can bring decent Internet to rural areas who don’t currently have broadband access, that’s just mutually beneficial for SpaceX and those customers.

When (if) those customers ever get broadband access by additional infrastructure investment, SpaceX will need to find a way to provide better value. I’m not sure I understand how this is a bad thing.