sameerds

"friends" is not limited to people that you grew up with, or studied with, or people that your parents knew. They can also be contacts that you made by reaching out, in social circles or through shared interests or tecnhical workshops, etc.

> Otherwise you are no better than someone at an intersection with a bottle of Windex and a squeegee who, unsolicited, cleans a windshield and then demands the driver to pay for it.

I am struggling to see how this analogy is relevant. It seems more like a knee jerk to the use of "force" in the headline. TFA seems to be talking about a potential way to _generate revenue_ through side channels that are deemed valuable by the users. This is clearly different from "demand the user to pay for it" as the analogy would imply.

Open source contributors don't come unsolicited to "clean the users' windshields". They just write stuff that they find useful and the inherent value of that work attracts other developers as much as users. And then the whole thing grows too large to maintain without serious money.

> It's asking somebody who writes code to now read and debug others code.

That's exactly right. Open source projects are currently drowning under LLM generated PRs, where those who used to write code are simply punting that work to AI, but still expecting others to review it. It's not okay to expect such a free lunch. If you moved the labour of writing code one step away, then you are yourself the first line of defence now, so you better start reviewing code that you claim to be yours.

That's how I learned Emacs!

From The Article

> Makes me wonder if a solar system wide civilization, with trillions of beings, wouldn't invest in ships to go to the next system, extract resources, and create a stream of resources ships going back to the original solar system.

You mean colonize and feed the empire?

> If you weren't able to build it before then you aren't able to properly verify it

GP said "couldn't dream of building". To make an analogy, I wouldn't dream of building a house if I had to do every bit of brick-laying myself. But with others doing what I can't do, I can indeed dream of building a house and I do know how to verify that the house was built to satisfy my dream.

It could just be that each of the two reviewers is merely focussing on different sides of the same coin? I use Claude all the time. It saves me a lot of effort that I would have otherwise spent in looking up specific components. The magically autocompleted pieces of boilerplate are a tangible relief. It also catches issues that I missed. But when it is wrong, it can be subtly or embarassingly or spectacularly wrong depending on the situation.

> I can still run 2-3 clients almost 24/7 pumping out features.

Honest question. How does one do that? My workflow is to create one git worktree per feature and start one session per worktree. And then I spent two hours in a worktree talking to Opus and reviewing what it is doing.

You forgot "I am honoured and humbled to announce <insert mundane recognition>."

I am hearing this term for the first time but I love it. It is novel and creates a picture. Exactly what Scott Adams says about labels used for persuasion. I usually say "highly trained autocomplete" in discussions at work, but I am going to say "stochastic parrot" from now on.

India too!

> everyone that claims it makes them so perceptively and clearly faster - how do you know?

For me, AI tools act like supercharged code search and auto complete. I have been able to make changes in complex components that I have rarely worked on. It saved me a week of effort to find the exact API calls that will do what I needed. The AI tool wrote the code and I only had to act as a reviewer. Of course I am familiar with the entire project and I knew the shape of the code to expect. But it saved me from digging out the exact details.

> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with.

That has the same vibes as a customer support helpline that has no intention to actually help.