You need to treat the code that arrived in response to your prompt as a raw material: just like some truckload of unrefined and unmolded "stuff", it just arrived at your factory door, and it is still in need of banging into shape.

Your job is to build and operate the machinery (which is also software) that turns raw slop into worthy output.

Determine the tolerances (eg. quality tolerance: how bug-free must this be to ship?) and then work out how you'll scale up and remove yourself from as much of the attainment of those tolerances as possible, given constraints.

Consider by way of analogy an industrial food factory that mass produces, say, pickled fish. The fish are caught and brought to the factory - that's your agent's first-draft output. Next the fish are put by hand on a belt to be dipped, fired, cured, etc. - that mix of by-hand steps and automated steps is where you'd be crafting the custom linting steps, making the code compiled and having the agent write tests that prove quality, playing with the work (testing the feature, bugfix etc. by hand) and bringing it further from slop to the level of quality that's needed. The amount of this you do is determined by constraints - cost, time, etc.

Now that you're sizing your efforts against constraints and using tolerances as a tool, you're making the transition in your role, from craftsperson to engineer.

It's sort of like a factory. But it's never going to be a lights-out factory. You should design, supervise and improve the process in line with constraints and tolerances provided by stakeholders. And leave perfectionism at the door. You can chase your own definition of perfection in your hobby time, or if you want to get paid for perfection, start your own business where you call the shots.

It does though, by redirecting funds & human effort that could be used for more lighting.

Here's a counter-anecdote though, to give you hope.

In Bondi in Sydney there's a lighting upgrade underway on the beach promenade; the plan was circulated so I got to take a look. As you hoped they indeed did deeply consider throw angles and what's lit & unlit, and ran a competitive tender to choose among many vendors, settling on one they lauded for their flexibility in offering products that can throw at specific angles and leave specific areas unlit. In the plan published for public comments they specify the exact angles needed with diagrams and everything. So it's possible! It requires public servants to go above and beyond, which does happen, just not all the time and not in all the places. But it does happen!

While also - paradoxically - forgetting that there are plenty of dark places just outside your city if you're willing to drive to them.

Perhaps it's in service of baiting you to click.

And they probably optimize their life in a way that's invisible to you.

Home Assistant won't read the state of them so they're lacking in integration, but the plus was that caused me to not set up Home Assistant. Not making a fragile computer a single point of failure and not tying my whole house to one shared-fate system with all the failure modes of a small scale full stack SaaS gave me a couple more nines of reliability.

One downside is the commute to the wall if you want to use them. Commuting to a light switch is actually good though, I'm pleased to report it's a nice stroll. It takes around the same time it takes to unlock my phone and discover my phone can't switch on the lights in my house. It goes past a window so it has views.

When I read some vendors' stuff was gonna stop working I went home and turned off and on all my light switches to simulate a reboot in solidarity for those whose hobby is to make their home less usable. Hopefully you folks are able to spend a few hundred bucks more to refresh your stuff for this decade. If you need me, I'll be over at the wall panel.

A movie set only needs to look convincing enough to film one good take from one angle. After that it is usually (but not always) torn down.

It only needs to look real enough to fool the audience - whom have no control over camera or what happens on screen..

And if you really want to stretch the analogy, anything wrong with a movie set can be "fixed" in post.

To build the real thing the movie is faking is an endeavor with almost no crossover.

Thanks for sharing!

Modern China has morphed itself into a highly capable society. They make your drones, they make your computers, they make your textiles... and mostly, they do it while providing their people better quality of life than the previous generation.

Counter-anecdotes abound as you'd expect t from a society of millions. But there's widespread prosperity over there.

There are plenty of decent opportunities for those who want to work hard, no different to how it is in the US.

This is what I went with.

I use it in end to end tests as an S3 simulator that starts and stops instantly and reads & writes to a local directory, - as you'd expect it's great in that role. No complaints. Given the fork's maintainer puts their real name on it & stakes their reputation, you'd assume it can be trusted - but my use case is simpler than most.

Sorry to be a pain, and with full recognition that I don't probably represent the majority, but I care about emoji reactions, reply support, ability to send & receive images and video, ability to see that video later, a reasonable set of access control features for group chats; reply-privately for group chat messages, and a dozen other things. And I care about not making someone download an app I've never used that talks the protocol, because I can't support them getting started. So a single cross platform UX is needed too before you can hope for traction.

Some of this is UX; some requires infra (eg. storing & forwarding media)

But to produce a "complete" messaging tool is harder than it looks and the protocol layer, while important, should not be the focus of discussion. There needs to be a holistic conversation that includes UX, infrastructure capabilities, branding, and network effects.

> Further, they should be removed because X is an awful site with poor moderation that is owned by a man who publicly performed a Nazi Sieg Heil salute and has directly contributed to the rise of fascism in the United States of America and globally, among other horrors.

Heck yeah, a great flourish added to bring a truly fun read to a strong close.

We agree that most peopke aren't equipped to provide informed consent and "buyer beware" won't work. For these the government steps in - car & plane safety for example.

They look and feel awesome.

But the soles - the shoes' souls - are designed to disintegrate in real time.

But my equally anecdotal counteranecdote is that I've owned multiple pairs of the Saucony equivalent (Pro 2, Pro 3, and then Pro 4) over multiple years and gotten thousands of km out of each pair. They just last and last.

So I'm a brand loyalist for now..

It's life, can't help a few mistakes on your way. I'm happy with where I've landed. (pun intended!)

Did 180km of training, maybe 5 weeks worth, and the soles utterly shredded. Couldn't put my foot down level, corners of the soles completely gone.

Shoe store said that's what they're designed to do, no refund.

Cost me about $2AUD per km. But it'll cost Nike a bit more than that.

If simple regulation existed - say, "no one can use data for any purpose the user did not explicitly consent to, including product improvements AND including on-selling", that suddenly turns giving up data into a legally-binding, two-party transaction.

There'd be an explosion of really cool uses of data as a result of the trust that'd engender.

But today's status quo is lucrative - so here we stay.

Of course it's possible for it to go off the rails. Consider that a wildly swung sword can do damage you can't do with your bare hands. To prevent this, constrain your model to the solution shape you want by grounding it; give it contact with reality; ways to run the code it's generating and refine it to meet your goals; granular tests; etc.

The new job is in how you wield the tools and it is at least as complex as the old.

The (new) lack of need to redo solutions to already solved things opens up new craft we've not yet conceived.

We shouldn't reimplement solutions and call it self-education; humans have always stood on the shoulders of giants. These tools contain those giants (copyright notwithstanding) and let you receive solutions to solved things; if your mindset is in order you can leverage that to ignore the solved bits and do even more ambitious stuff.