They overly compress the master channel specifically to make it very loud, and there's dozens of interviews with engineers that are frustrated with it.

You're conflating regular compression with the insanely over the top mastering people started doing. This goes way beyond keeping people off the volume knob. You do not need that much compression to keep your volume in a listenable range, and you certainly don't have to slam the entire master bus through a limiter. The loudness wars really was just about having a louder track than everyone else. So much so that the whole process of mastering became how to make it sound as loud as possible without sounding compressed. If it were just about keeping volume consistent, they would not do it through the master bus. There are so many interviews with mastering engineers who are frustrated with the pointless chase for volume.

Arguably, listeners have heard it so long that they've gotten used to the exaggerated compression, and they just like it now stylistically. Some of my favorite records are very loud.

Nobody was talking about performance. There's too much handwaving in your comment to really go further.

Clojure meanwhile is very terse without being unreadable. It really does read like a series of data transformations.

> Then you add an agent that goes through the code and simplifies it

Can you? I just asked Opus to generate a sum function.

    def sum(a, b):
        return a + b

    add = lambda a, b: a + b

If you ask it to simplify something, it will make changes whether it needs to or not. Now imagine we were working with a function that is a couple hundred lines. What changes would it make?

The reason something superfluous was written to begin with is because an LLM does not always know what is superfluous. Producing and reading is really cheap for the LLM, so it doesn't have the same considerations we do in writing code. It's more willing to reinvent the wheel or write something that is way more verbose than it needs to be.

In practice, asking an LLM to simplify it just means it adds a different superfluous thing. Or it refactors things that didn't need to be refactored (because it can do it quickly). The result is LLM code, even if it's good, tends to bloat a bit. Multiply that across 100 people all vibe coding and not reading the code base, and soon you have an unreadable mess.

You cannot curate your feed on Facebook. You used to, sure. Now it's just whatever they give you.

This is wildly untrue. I follow specific people here and I recognize names all the time. It would be super confusing if some of the people I'm interested in hearing from completely different names. And comments are content. I read old threads all the time. If that all went away, a huge part of how I use this site would be gone.

Most notably? This is not a mass market use case in the way the author is describing. They are asserting that the amount of spend they need to get this off the ground necessitates the entire world coming in on it, and I would say that opinion has aged pretty well. There are a lot of coders, but there are more people scratching their heads as AI is shoved into every part of their lives.

Look at Java, it has nothing to do with coffee!

My understanding is a script does two things 1) It can be interpreted. Even if it has some kind of JIT or bytecode step, it can be run as soon as file changes are made. 2) It's one or several informally wired together files for small tasks. A small task meaning you could patch it live without being worried about breaking something, because you can keep it all in your head. It's a narrower definition of a "program."

At that level of programming, terseness becomes an asset rather than a liability, and that's why "scripting languages" tend to be dogged on in larger programs.

But you didn't encounter those people. People said they've used the tools, and then you said it wasn't recent enough. Not because you know when they've used it last, but because their experience didn't match yours.

It's great that it's working for you, really. But since you have been posting on HN a lot about this, while simultaneously claiming you don't care what other people do, maybe consider a different approach than calling everyone luddites. If people call you a shill, and you exit the conversation claiming you don't care, but then you go to the next thread doing the same low effort stuff, don't be surprised when people see a pattern. There are lots of people communicating more effectively about this.

"efficient scalable code" is just as vague as good code. How are you going to know your code is scalable if you don't understand your domain? Scalability is not something you sprinkle onto code.

It's going to be debated forever whether wiring your own open source tech has a lower development cost than the equivalent AWS bill. For me, that's too broad a statement, as I have seen it go both ways. What is true: There is only some knowledge overlap between maintaining an AWS stack and having your own Prometheus logged, ceph backed set of boxes.

That is not the case with LLMs. At least, not right now. They roughly work the same and are easy to pick up. They are about as straightforward of an interface as it gets, and using them in "advanced" ways could be summarized on an index card. They are relatively fungible.

I don't see a world where OpenAI runs on brand recognition alone. It needs to be more convenient to run than local LLMs. They've done that by buying so much of the worlds hardware that it becomes more expensive to run these things locally.

Where are you getting this? He goes out of his way to say how dangerous AI, and has implied before congress that only companies with special licenses should be able to develop it.

Does the concept of redundant middle management scandalize you? It's a relatively common experience, even if it's sometimes exaggerated. It actually takes a lot to be a good manager, and most people are not self aware enough to be good at it.

Relative to how many of them actively campaign against our basic interests, I would say people disproportionately love billionaires.