youknownothing

Anecdotical evidence is not just useless, it's deceiving. I only know one person who voted for Brexit, and it's a low-40s Scottish lawyer who lives in South West London (the posh part). And he's still alive. It doesn't mean anything.

Are you saying that 52% of British people are retired?

It's surviving *for now*. This pace isn't sustainable, they know it, but they need to pretend until the IPO. That's when they'll start worrying about quality. The pace of feature creation is going to decrease the moment they float.

Remember Facebook's original motto: Go fast and break things. That's where the speed is coming from.

Anthropic's speed of development is about 20% AI and 80% technical debt. We all could be faster if we stopped trying to build things right.

Once Anthropic floats, I predict a screeching halt in feature development to fix all the technical debt that they're accumulating.

"We treated code as permanent because the labor to produce it was the bottleneck."

I don't think that's true. We treated code as permanent because we considered code to be the source of truth. Computers don't run documents, computers run code. If the requirements document contradicted the code, then the default was to assume that the requirements document was wrong.

You can't separate code from spec because the code is the spec.

Am I the only one who thinks this is just another carefully orchestrated publicity stunt? like all the noise they made about Mythos that turned out to be a big nothingburger?

The AI bubble is beginning to show signs of being about to burst (or at least deflate), so they need new sources of hype. Nothing calls for interest as the threat of a ban.

People who think that "software engineering" and "writing code" are the same thing will indeed be out of a job. People who understand the difference will continue to thrive.

Thinking that software engineers can be replaced by AI is like thinking that mathematicians can be replaced by calculators.

To be fair, considering that there are minerals in the Moon that don't exist on Earth, it's normal that the human body experiments an allergic reaction to a set of substances that it hasn't ever been exposed to during thousands of years of evolution.

Isn't this going to break a lot of React Router navigation? Are they going to manually check every website to see if their manipulation of the history is legit or spammy?

I'll probably get a lot of hate mail for this but here goes nothing... Despite what many people like to claim, you cannot prove that a program has no bugs. That means proving the absence of bugs, and you cannot prove a negative. The best thing you can do is fail to find a bug, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Before everyone starts blabbing about formal verification, etc., consider this: how do you know that you didn't make a mistake in your formal verification? IOW, how do you know your formal verification is bug-free? Answer: you don't. Or if you try to formally verify your formal verification then you're just translating the problem to a new layer. It's just a chain of proofs that is always ultimately based on an unproven one, which invalidates the whole chain.

You can get asymptotically close to zero-bug proof, but you can never get there 100% of the way.

Is this the digital version of Supersize Me?

I must confess this is an odd decision. It's true that the drop in engagement is abismal (97% reduction is ouch). However, given that they're still posting in other sites, what's the marginal cost of keeping X in the equation? Presumably they're using some aggregator where you compose the post once and it gets automatically posted to BlueSky, Mastodon, Thread, etc., what's the cost of keeping X?

YES! I get the point of mobility and all that but I wish someone would give a ticket to some of those a-holes. Honestly, town halls have been looking the other way for far too long on this matter.