I might have not stated my position correctly. When I mean "squash on merge", I mean the commit history is fully present in the PR for full scrutiny. Sometimes commits may introduce multiple changes and I can view commit ranges for each set of changes. But it takes the summation of the commits to illustrate the change the engineer is proposing. The summation is an atomic change, thus scrutinizing terms post-merge is meaningless. Squashing preserves the summation but rids of the terms.

Versioned releases on main are tagged by these summations, not their component parts.

I've never considered how an engineer approaches a problem. As long as I can understand the fundamental change and it passes preflights/CI I don't care if it was scryed from a crystal ball.

This does mean it is on the onus of the engineer to explain their change in natural language. In their own words of course.

I can't put my finger on it. Why is this writing style so embarrassing?

Impressive, but honestly meeting the bar. It's frankly disturbing that PRs are opened by agents and they often don't validate their changes. Almost all validations one might run don't even require inference!

Am I crazy? Do I take for granted that I:

- run local tests to catch regressions - run linting to catch code formatting and organization issues - verify CI build passes, which may include integration or live integration tests

Frankly these are /trivial/ tasks for an agent in 2026 to do. You'd expect a junior to fail at this and chastise a senior for skipping these. The fact that these agents don't perform these is a human operator failure.

>but why were you subjecting yourself to daily misery for so long in the first place? I don't get it.

It just meant it took a lot longer to build something, to get that satisfaction.

I agree with OP because the journey itself rarely helps you focus on system architecture, deliverable products and how your downstream consumers use your product. And not just product in the commercial sense, but FOSS stuff or shareware I slap together because I want to share a solution to a problem with other people.

The gambling fallacy is tiresome as someone who, at least I believe, can question the bullshit models try to do sometimes. It is very much gambling for CEOs, idea men who do not have a technical floor to question model outputs.

If LLMs were /slow/ at getting a working product together combined with my human judgement, I wouldn't use them.

So, when I encounter someone who doesn't pin value into building something that performs useful work, only the actual journey of it, regardless of usefulness of said work, I take them as seriously as an old man playing with hobby trains. Not to disparage hobby trains, because model trains are awesome, but they are hubris.

But an application that combines xyz features is novel in this scenario. There is inherent value in that.

If there are no such applications, I don't have a choice but to write it myself. This could take some time, especially if an MVP is all I'm interested in. LLMs are a novel tool in building an MVP. If time is a constraint, I can use an LLM, which should excel since xyz features are in its training set.

I suppose your analogy follows for developers who write applications that support abc features even though there are already applications out there that support abc features. Yes, I don't think that is very interesting. Your umpteenth clone of Snake is not interesting.

So a black segregated community does not sound very racist for these historical reasons. Not to say that desegregation in America has failed, but that there are infallible holdouts that wish to cling to a rotted out ideology that, again, its origins by its believers have largely forgotten.

Asian American communities are complicit, more or less unknowingly, to a lesser extent but only because they have aped to authority in America to achieve "whiteness".

The sad truth is that there is no community that prides itself on being white without parroting trickster mercantile talking points, of which again I remind that their origins are forgotten and they do not even know why they hate so fiercely.

So something like Blacksky is genuinely exciting in theory. Even though it will probably self select in a way that makes it inhospitable for new comers. Much like Bluesky...but, I'm describing a separate argument from historical bigotry, which I feel compelled to call out since its origins have--for the fourth time--been so forgotten.