It's comedy. You might not find it funny, but it's rather small-minded to suggest that no one else could find it funny.

The grep for bugs is not particularly comprehensive: it will pick up some things that aren't bugs, and will miss a bunch of things too.

The "project accelerating or dying" seems odd to me. By definition, the bulk of commits/changes will be at the very beginning of history. And regardless, "stability" doesn't mean "dying".

Both of those things can be true.

I think you are very much out of touch with the average book/e-book consumer.

(Which in this case is likely DRM-related, which drops my sympathy meter below zero.)

Meanwhile, I can still read physical books I've had since I was a child, 40 years ago. The Kindle is undeniably more convenient than physical books, but this is absolutely an unnecessary sunset of these devices.

Water is not to be trifled with.

I wonder why they went with a new keyword; I assumed the compiler would opportunistically do TCO when it thinks it's possible, and I figured that the simplest way to require TCO (or else fail compilation) could be done with an attribute.

(Not sure if the article addressed that... I only skimmed it.)

Yes, there's a lot of government waste, but NASA ain't it.

And I would suggest that the billionaire class and unfettered capitalism are far more responsible for the modern day version of Scott-Heron's woes than the good ol' government scapegoat.

Corporations claiming the refund on my behalf (and then not propagating that refund to me) is just icing on that shit-cake.

If yes, then that's dangerously optimistic. If not, then we'll always need humans who have learned the "hard way" (the Alices, not the Bobs). But if LLMs make it impossible for Alices to come up in the field, we're screwed.

The question is: will agents improve to the point that even the most capable Alices will never be needed to solve problems? Maybe? Maybe not? I'm worried that they won't improve to that degree.

And even if they do, what is the purpose of humans in this world?

The article addresses this, because, well... no we aren't. Maybe we are. But it's far from clear that we're not moving toward a plateau in what these agents can do.

> Whether a human does actual work or not isn't particularly exciting to a market.

You seem to be convinced these AI agents will continue to improve without bound, so I think this is where the disconnect lies. Some of us (including the article author) are more skeptical. The market values work actually getting done. If the AIs have limits, and the humans driving them no longer have the capability to surpass those limits on their own, then people who have learned the hard way, without relying so much on an AI, will have an advantage in the market.

I already find myself getting lazy as a software developer, having an LLM verify my work, rather than going through the process of really thinking it through myself. I can feel that part of my skills atrophying. Now consider someone who has never developed those skills in the first place, because the LLM has done it for them. What happens when the LLM does a bad job of it? They'll have no idea. I still do, at least.

Maybe someday the AIs will be so capable that it won't matter. They'll be smarter and more through and be able to do more, and do it correctly, than even the most experienced person in the field. But I don't think that's even close to a certainty.

But for everything else, it's fine to assume little-endian.

You sound like some sort of purist, so sure, if you really want to be explicit and support both endiannesses in your software when needed, go for it. But as general advice to random programmers: don't bother.