I mean others are saying its divided and that's true.

I guess the other side of your argument is... Is it better though? One could easily argue much of software development is promising projects strangled by their own technical debt and short sighted designs. It still has yet to be seen if AI can make well architected systems unsupervised. And this really was one of the few places where technical people shared their labors of love and appreciated the technical skills of a community.

Also, all the externalities whether that be environmental, social, or even technical and hn is really bad at actually talking about these things directly so we have to couch it all as the tool being bad. That's the part you're missing for many its more like its not good enough to justify the costs

I mean yea my take is that there's basically nothing that claude could benefit from that humans wont. So I see no reason to make claude-specific docs.

With that said, yes, the difference is I KNOW claude will read my docs, especially if I shove it into the context and therefore, I KNOW I'm getting ROI on that work.

As someone who has written docs for years I have spent too many hours writing docs that my colleagues proceed to just ignore and ask me to explain verbally. Its a culture thing if people don't have a natural instinct to read docs and a culture of documentation and asking others to read the docs INSTEAD of bothering the human.

Also, there may be something to the theory that people don't learn well from docs as tutorial. I find 10x faster return when I make a video for people or tutor them through something rather than sending them a link and asking them to read it. Often this is because good docs are disciplined and try to answer the one question they were asked. Which is great, untill you realize most are missing necessary background so now you're in a bind. Do you document foundations that are covered in other places? Or do you cover them in your own words making 10x more work for questionable value? Its not an easy question

I think this writer kinda took the bait which is fine someone had to do this so we couldn't debate endlessly.

But the reality is that if you were already set enough to call rsync slop because of a single post, you aren't going to be more down now. Even in these responses I see everyone nitpicking and moving goalposts as if one more commit being actually claude-aided will tip the scales from stable project to "vibe coded slop".

Software has always been fuzzy, we have never come up with an objective way to handle software quality, and this Uber hatred of llm contributions lets the humans who make egregious bugs and mistakes off the hook.

Taking a step back, we need to have more empathy and thoughtfulness of one another in this space. Its new and people are experimenting and there will be nothing good coming from personal insults and DDOsing a good project just because someone got ragebaited on threads, x, mastodon or whatever else.

How do we determine bugs and increase quality? Its almost like we have been grappling with this question for decades and I still hear people fight on the best way forward. Simple design, test driven development, user surveys, all of the above have been used as a proxy for software and they all failed to capture everything. Back in the day we used that ambiguity to give each other grace, now we use that ambiguity to tear down other creators. Whatever, if open source software really is dying its because of this toxic shit just as much as the llms

'this toxic shit' would not be occurring if we didn't invent a machine that can be used either as a firehose or a scalpel. I do acknowledge that behaving hurtfully towards somebody giving something away for free is unwarranted behaviour. perhaps a universally agreed quality control method does not exist - this does not suggest that ai slop is anything but low quality code. ai can indeed be used well, however you yourself mentioned letting humans off the hook for making egregious mistakes. pushing out ai slop IS an egregious mistake. when a release contains more commits than the previous N releases, slop likelihood increases, therefore further evidence is required to prove non sloppiness.

I recently posted about how I refuse to buy apple products because of stuff like this. The lock in has made iPhone users dependent on a app ecosystem when we could have had most of our functionality through the open web.

People saying they don't want these features are missing the point. Its about control and if developers have the option to make something as a website that actually works that gives them less incentive to make an app that apple can take 30% of your profit from while you are forced to write in their proprietary language for the stuff that only works on their devices.

So much engineering duplication of effort and waste just to satisfy a bottom line.

Break the app store monopoly, don’t make the web browser into a buggy leaky bloated mess.

And you can write iOS apps in objective c, swift, kotlin, jacascript, rust, ruby, and a few dozen other languages.

The web can be a competitor for the app stores, breaking that monopoly. It already did on desktop (where most users spend > 90% of their time in a browser)

And yes, you can write native apps in a lot of languages, but you can't choose how/where you distribute.

On the web, you can. It's built that way.

Except one of the main things i like about the web is that websites don’t have invasive access to my life. The web-as-app-platform idea erodes that.

But either way the issue is the same - apple preventing us from installing what we want. But my solution protects freedom in a more robust way: if you break the app store monopoly, you can install chrome or firefox and do all the web-app-platform nonsense you want. If safari adds all the features on that list you’re still stuck demanding apple add a new feature every time you want to innovate.

And as for programming - for the web you can write in a lot of languages but you only have two options For debugging - js and webassembly.

> if you break the app store monopoly, you can install chrome or firefox and do all the web-app-platform nonsense you want

Apple would also need to be forced to provide the APIs that browsers need so they can properly integrate with the OS (a lot of those APIs are private, currently), but good point, that would absolutely be one way to break this open.

“Private api” is fairly meaningless outside of an app store context. The symbols are easily extracted and headers can be re-constructed in minutes. The issue has always been that if you use these apis your app will be rejected from the store.

I refuse to buy macbooks/apple products and advise my people to do the same.

I make it clear it's not about specs, it's not about UI, its about the fact that apple makes the world actively worse so they can sell you a better alternative.

You cant have iMessage anywhere else because they don't want you to, you are locked into apple stores because they refuse competition, you cant repair your own device because they get that money back in repair fees.

Its not about the operating system or the specs, I feel investing in Linux is the best way to create a more sustainable future for me and the ones I love and changing that take will require systemic changes, not these spec bumps and UI overhauls people fixate on.

I would normally strongly agree, I don't like Apple as a company - for example the Apple store and Patreon 30 % tax https://qht.co/item?id=46801419 Their policies overall.

However there is no comparable laptop hardware in the non-Apple world. Even if I wanted to pay double, there is no usable fanless high-quality quick laptop. Very sadly. The Air is just too good for the money and the competition too bloody incompetent and bad.

> you are locked into apple stores because they refuse competition

I don't follow this one. You can buy Apple hardware from other retailers. You can download software, out of the box, from places other than the Mac App Store.

> I make it clear it's not about specs, it's not about UI, its about the fact that apple makes the world actively worse so they can sell you a better alternative.

I like the UI. What do you think they making worse?

I 100% agree. Most of the things that people say about lacking in non-macs, are eh. There are so many non-apple options that don't contribute to e-waste. Everything Apple can be dead at Apple's whims and it is ewaste.

I think this is a classic case of correlation does not imply causation. As someone that has known these people, and I does smoke as an adult, I would interpret that as people who are struggling with mental illness symptoms turn to weed as an outlet. Especially when we take it with the wider literature on drug abuse and mental illness any practitioner worth their salt knows mental illness makes drug abuse more likely and yes then the two affect one another which is why rehab is usually a big part of the hospitalization process. But what I don't want to see is more moral panic so we can renew the war on drugs which as always should really be the war on poverty and mental health issues.

The only real answer is something like web assembly and that would be a major breaking change for them.

This is why allot run dev containers but agreed this really should be top priority but instead is probably in the "maybe if we have a major security incident" bucket of concerns as these things often are

This is already supported for a while and is the way to have those Rust and C++ processes run in the Web IDE version on Github and Azure DevOps.

As someone who has been running all the components of omarchy before they made it, I agree with you in spirit especially as an arch user.

But other people need an ISO and yes all those things are kinda considered standard at this point.

People like you and I aren't the target audience, but for the people who are, this is what they have been asking for.

Remember, in other countries, especially eastern ones, the recommendation of even your local city means allot. There is a deeper trust of government bodies so this will likely have an impact.

And starting small is probably good, lets the idea iterate before rolling it out wider and this often comes down to making a choice, this city just thought this would be best and I suspect unless this goes horribly wrong it will help

I live in the 23 wards of Tokyo and certainly do. The local governments in other countries I've lived seem to just take and give very little back (while paying their unelected c-suite ridiculous salaries), but ours has given us thousands over the years for child related expenses.

Your child related expenses are not “given”, other taxpayers have paid for it. And for them, they have very little given back, if we factor in very high tax load in Japan.

Just because someone ride the wave of payouts for kids doesn’t mean government is giving back a lot. Japanese government, just like any other government out there, extremely inefficient and corrupt, absorbing huge amounts of money in taxes and giving very little back. Particularly to those who actually earn those money.

Is this recommandation backed by science? I suspect it is.

Then a public scientific body should come up with such a recommandation, right?

And then there would be no need for a mere city to issue one, am I correct?

Having a base level of trust in your government can have incredibly positive effects on society. In the US, I dream of the day where government could try out ideas without the pitchforks coming out. Sure, some ideas will be terrible and that’s OK as long as we throw them in the trash can.