I blame apple for making me run an old macOS version because I don't want to look at this ugly mess they've created. I've been running macOS since 2008, and unless they manage to turn things around, my next laptop won't be an apple.

I've switched to it from iTerm2 a couple of years ago and gradually added more and more to my config and it's super powerful.

But, they allow you to write your own sieve scripts so you can really customize the experience a lot.

Don't think of them as another proton mail, they're much more a DIY mail provider.

I've been a customer for 4-5 years, ever since I saw a hn post about them, and I have zero complaints.

It's dirt cheap ($10 per year for unlimited amount of users).

They allow wildcard addresses and I've set up my own "trash mail" so I can register an account at e.g. LinkedIn with linkedin@my-domain.com.

I've set up 4 different domains and 3 accounts and all of this for $10 a year.

Sorry if this reads like an ad, but I think it's super cool to offer such a great service for a fair price.

There is also "b" for block device (e.g. a disk, a partition, or even something like a loopback device) and "p" for FIFOs (similar to mkfifo).

The two numbers are just identifiers to specify the device, so in case of `5 1` it means the systems tty console, while `1 8` would mean "blocking random byte device" (mknod dev/random c 1 8)

Are they mainly using certain frameworks that already have a rigid structure, thus allowing LLMs to not worry about code structure/software architecture?

Are they worry-free and just run with it?

Not asking rhetorically, I seriously want to know.

I've tried it multiple times, but even after spending 4 hours on a fresh project I don't feel like I know what the hell is going on anymore.

At that point I'm just guessing what the next prompt is to make it work. I have no critical knowledge about the codebase that makes me feel like I could fix an edge case without reading the source code line by line (which at that point would probably take longer than 4 hours).

I don't understand how anyone can work like that and have confidence in their code.

See: "Lego sues Dutch firm over anti-terror blocks using name and shape" https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/lego-sues-dutc... ( http://archive.today/q5XrX )

Impressive from a technical standpoint, but super scary from a privacy standpoint. Surely this must allow them to detect and differentiate between plosives, which is probably enough to infer what's being talked about.

GPT-5 is just awful. It's such a downgrade from 4o, it's like it had a lobotomy.

- It gets confused easily. I had multiple arguments where it completely missed the point.

- Code generation is useless. If code contains multiple dots ("…"), it thinks the code is abbreviated. Go uses three dots for variadic arguments, and it always thinks, "Guess it was abbreviated - maybe I can reason about the code above it."

- Give it a markdown document of sufficient length (the one I worked on was about 700 lines), and it just breaks. It'll rewrite some part and then just stop mid-sentence.

- It can't do longer regexes anymore. It fills them with nonsense tokens ($begin:$match:$end or something along those lines). If you ask it about it, it says that this is garbage in its rendering pipeline and it cannot do anything about it.

I'm not an OpenAI hater, I wanted to like it and had high hopes after watching the announcement, but this isn't a step forward. This is just a worse model that saves them computing resources.

Or anything that breaks the norm really.

I recently wrote something where I updated a variable using atomic primitives. Because it was inside a hot path I read the value without using atomics as it was okay for the value to be stale. I handed it the code because I had a question about something unrelated and it wouldn't stop changing this piece of code to use atomic reads. Even when I prompted it not to change the code or explained why this was fine it wouldn't stop.

Maybe I spend too much time rage baiting myself reading X threads and that's why I feel the need to emphasize that AI isn't what they make it out to be.

I recently used OpenAI models to generate OCaml code, and it was eye opening how much even reasoning models are still just copy and paste machines. The code was full of syntax errors, and they clearly lacked a basic understanding of what functions are in the stdlib vs those from popular (in OCaml terms) libraries.

Maybe GPT-5 is the great leap and I'll have to eat my words, but this experience really made me more pessimistic about AI's potential and the future of programming in general. I'm hoping that in 10 years niche languages are still a thing, and the world doesn't converge toward writing everything in JS just because AIs make it easier to work with.

I'd appreciate any feedback on whether these changes make the behavior more transparent and less misleading.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here but this library is not meant to replace tests. It's for initially finding the bug for which you then write a test case (or not).

Maybe I'm just old, maybe it's just a different approach, but I built dlg for myself because it fits my workflow.

> What does this meaningfully offer over the "built-in" debug logging?

For you, it most likely doesn't offer anything meaningful.

For devs who use fmt.Printf a lot, it maybe does.

You're absolutely right, it annoys me as well.

It's a bit finicky to do so, but I'm currently in an exploratory phase of providing an even more fine grained stack tracing feature and filtering out dlg itself is definitly on my todo list.