https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-php-singularity/

The computer generated recipes can be useful as inspiration, but of course common sense is required.

How would the companies ever know?

I was expecting an ad for their product somewhere towards the end, but it wasn't there!

I do wonder though: why would this company report this vulnerability to Mozilla if their product is fingeprinting?

Isn't it better for the business (albeit unethical) to keep the vulnerability private, to differentiate from the competitors? For example, I don't see many threat actors burning their zero days through responsible disclosure!

Because there is nothing remotely close to Laravel for JS. I don't want to think about auth, job queues, mailing, cache layers, auditing etc. I want an opinionated default from my framework that is thoroughly documented and part of the AI training corpus. Laravel gives that to me.

>single-handedly keeping PHP relevant

While architecture astronauts are clutching pearls, I've built multiple profitable products with Laravel without caring the slighest about the internals, both before and after AI.

PHP was always all about just building stuff while ignoring code quality. Laravel is a natural extension of that approach. Let us live.

I agree, but what you describe is agile, not Agile (capital A).

Agile (capital A) is Scrum (capital S) where you have Backlog Grooming (patent pending) where the team clears any ambiguity to define a spec (ticket).

Deviating from said spec is seen as Scope Creep (gasp) and might lead to complaints during Sprint Review (trademark).

So yes, agile prefers working software over detailed spec. But typical manifestations of Agile (capital A) are exactly the opposite.

Sending armed agents at protesters is seen as being the same thing as sending pest control to clear out beaver dams on the creek. Nobody cares what the beavers think, they are not human, they do not have feelings. They are simply a menace to be dealth with.

The author didn't, and used a general tool to their aid - why is that unfortunate?

The IF is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

I understood the OP in the context of "human history has not produced sufficiently many tokens to be sent into the machines to make the return of investment possible mathematically".

Maybe the "token production" accelerates, and the need for so much compute realizes, who knows.