terabytest

That’s what the URL links to.

Such a braindead move. You go to the Dia product page and it looks exactly the same as Arc. What’s the point? Just keep improving Arc. I know that back when they originally abandoned Arc, Dia looked like a generic Google Chrome clone with AI stapled on, but I cannot imagine what good reason they had at all to give up Arc and burn their entire user base along the way. I’m not a paying user, so I guess they don’t care about me after all.

Does the sandbox have its own checkout of the repositories you work on? How do you run code review or live editing of the files the LLM is working on?

I’m completely ignorant about this and likely just missing the point but: isn’t the point of an OS to not have to (vibe)code filesystems and networking by hand every time you need them? Also, how does a unikernel cooperate with other applications? Would they all live in separate networked unikernels managed by a hypervisor? And, if they all (vibe)coded their own fs and network wouldn’t that introduce subtle bugs and inconsistencies that would eventually bring the whole thing down and lead you back to the need for shared primitives in the first place?

Maybe a good halfway point is to still have a unikernel but the libraries for common stuff like networking or fs are already written according to a standard and plug and play and reusable across applications?

No, Mois Navon.

You might be talking about the wrong person.

What’s the difference between a law and an integration test?

Sounds like the definition of monarchy?

I apologize if this came across as an attack. I would just say that in a sea of slop, it’s really hard to invest the time it takes to judge the quality of an individual tool, and you might develop heuristics to survive. One useful heuristic is whether the documentation looks written by AI or not, because the level of attention paid to documentation often mirrors what you’d find in terms of software quality. If you want to stand out, you have to look like you’ve invested the time and effort to communicate to your reader that what you wrote is worth their precious time.

At this point, are we sharing these AI-written articles to make fun of how bad they are? Is there any substance left to discuss?

> When the panel proposes a change to the file, the Änderungen prüfen modal opens first.

This is in the first section. If they never bothered to proofread their article, how is it worth the time it takes to read it?

I’m not being facetious. It’s becoming extremely hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Every piece of software looks and reads like a homogenous pile of Claudisms. Even if the software in question is good, I immediately lose trust in the developer’s good faith when I see stuff like this.

For what it's worth, I would love to read the earlier drafts before the AI workshopped them.