> The hard problem is not generating change, it’s organizing, reviewing, and integrating change without creating chaos.

Sure, writing some code isn't the bottleneck. Glossed over is the part where the developer determines what changes to make, which in my experience is the most significant cost during development and it dwarfs anything to do with version control. You can spend a lot of energy on the organising, reviewing, patching, etc. stuff -- and you should be doing some amount of this, in most situations -- but if you're spending more of your development budget on metaprojects than you think you should be, I don't think optimising the metatooling is going to magically resolve that. Address the organisational issues first.

> This is what we’re doing at GitButler, this is why we’ve raised the funding to help build all of this, faster.

The time constraint ("faster") is, of course, entirely self-imposed for business reasons. There's no reason to expect that 'high cost + high speed' is the best or even a good way to build this sort of tooling, or anything else, for that matter.

Git's UI has become increasingly friendly over a very long time of gradual improvements. Yes, Mercurial was pretty much ideal out of the gate, but the development process in that case was (AFAIK) a world away from burning money and rushing to the finish.

Maybe going slow is better?

I really only wanted one hole in my box though, so I adjusted the query to "box with a single hole in it". the results looked indentical. except for one that stood out. I would link to the particular model, but there was no way to do that. this model appears to be a rectangular bathroom basin, on its side. I'd describe it as perhaps a ~currently fashionable porcelain design, but it could be a concrete 'getting shit done' sink, or a model from The Sims (the first one). so box-like perhaps, but not many people would describe it as a box. I guess my search continues (elsewhere)...

(actually interesting bit about natural language: I know that a box with two (or more) holes in it has a single hole in it, but most English natural language parsers (humans) will notice that specifying 'single' would be redundant if I wanted any number more than zero, so it's extremely unlikely that I was looking for a multi-hole box.)

where did you steal the models from, by the way? just curious. the original context in which they were found would actually be helpful if someone was for some reason trying to actually use this as a tool. [ed: saw the OP's comment down the page -- you can include a comment with the submission IIRC]

also if you don't have the 3D model spinning incessantly, having the page open won't be obnoxious and it won't (have to) waste power

your PNG/GIF thing is nonsense (false equivalence, at least) and seems like deliberate attempt to insult

> I'm marginally sympathetic

you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else. outside of these three words, you actually seem to see anyone doing this as completely invalid and that the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.

If you're reading past the first sentence this time -- it is obvious, yes. So why use such language to describe the software? Your deliberate choice to use misleading language is not only obviously incorrect, but harmful.

No one has, to my knowledge, demonstrated a machine learning program with any understanding or complexity of behaviour exceeding that of a human.

LLMs don't have understanding.

Frees up who, the LLM or the human? Same question for "they".

What does symmetrical, fractal code look like in this context? How does this property assist the LLM's parser?

So, sure, once there's some bare minimum qualification that one must attain to be an "owner-builder" of software, do that. Until then, vibe-coding perfectly describes what vibe-coders do -- except for the vibes, which aren't (obviously).

But as for your cringe issue that the audience noticed, one could see that to be a benefit -- prefer to have someone say e.g. "you typed `Normalise` (with an 's') again, C++ is written in U.S. English, don't you know / learn to spell, you slime" upfront than waiting for compiler to tell you that `Normalise` doesn't exist, maybe?

Press lever --> pellet.

Want pellet? --> press lever.

Pressed lever but no pellet? --> press lever.

Don't take "nonsense" negatively, please -- I mean it looks like you were having fun, which is certainly to be encouraged.

Governments around the world throw public money at private enterprise to solve all of their IT problems. This sounds good, I guess, to the Americans in the room. Until recently the US actually had a great number of "open source" projects -- NASA, NOAA, come to mind (the weather satellites are still going). Open projects, owned by the people -- this is the obviously correct way to do things. You can engage the business sector when it makes sense to do so, but a country shouldn't be run by -- be dependent on -- a Microsoft, or a PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Then they delete the production database and write the people a post mortem about how they'll improve for next time. Then they profit from war crimes that your government even quietly admits are a bad thing occasionally. Then they .

"Open source" isn't a solution. Free software would be a better look. But the entire world is completely dependent on IT systems and goverments don't employ enough software developers. Not "developers" to "refresh" the UI again, not Autodesk certified Call of Duty Black Ops 9 Micopilot Copilot 666 developers -- normal boring software developers -- public servants.

Make it dull. It's your people you're fucking with. Flashy app bad, boring UI good -- it's a tax return.

The thing that should be happening is serious public sector software development. By the people, for the people. Keep it in-house. I shouldn't have to say to keep it open. It belongs to the people.

"Free software" is a fine descriptor. It's needlessly confusing to repeat that "beer as in slurred speech" thing, though. Free software can be free "as in beer"[0], but the way it gets said makes it sound like it zero cost software is an anti-goal, rather than pointing out that it's not the true goal. Then the "free as in speech" thing is kind of pointless because you can just say "free as in freedom".

Free software is about fundamental computer freedom -- freedom to own your computer, inspect and modify, etc. -- we already have this word.

[0] where who why free beer ever? 0% relatable, 0/10 would still like a free beer though

I believe their point was to illustrate the disconnect between the problem and the solution. They agree with the problem, and experienced "whiplash" when the solution was described.

> For Government, kids on social media are not a big problem, that will only bite them in the decades to come.

In Australia the kids on social media are a problem for the government, today. A 16 year old is less than two years away from voting. Successive governments have laughed at the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 or 17. The government has very little influence on social media -- this is different to older forms of media / communication.

This is a problem. You will not accept an argument against the ban.

Instead you paint anyone presenting any opposition to any part of it as a stooge of predatory businesses.

> We are simply [...]

It's a simple idea, but the implementation is anything but.

> The real villains here are the social media companies [...]

They're getting out of this easy. You're giving them a free pass.

Tax them. Sue them.

Hold them liable for the content they show users.

Ban social media for children without empowering the social media companies or the government.

This article jumps right in the deep end, quoting a Silicon Valley insider:

> I’m getting an enormous number of very sophisticated LinkedIn requests from the same type of attractive young Chinese woman,

Now on the first read you might think "is that it?" -- is this seriously what the article is about? But the same insider also said:

> It really seems to have ramped up recently.

So yeah, like I said.

I would love to have Bob Ross, wielding a crayon, add some happy little trees to the walls of a Target.

And, yes, of course layoffs are something that need to be justified, just as with firing an individual employee, as you know -- the "employee is not being productive" is a justification.

A lot of websites include (anti-)features that make it extremely difficult for me to read and this severely limits the amount that I interact with the site. Features that hijack text selection in some way or preventing it entirely for whatever misguided reason are some of the worst offenders. Yes, I realise that not everything is for me -- I am getting that message loud and clear.

Preventing text selection is one of the most egregious and hostile ways to make your software unfriendly, but those insidious "share this quote" popout drawers are slowly fading in right behind it[0], hyperactively reflowing the layout and appending random snippets of selected text to the URL.

Reading is the most basic, most fundamental way to interact with the web. It's fundamental to using software in general. It seems to be necessary to point out that 'reading' and 'looking at' are not interchangeable terms. Frankly, designers should know better.

[0] Except they're not, because you can't select the text, obviously.

I don't know how many vulnerable drivers the average gamer has installed. I'm sure 'at least some' is a safe assumption. The issue I have with this is that although it may be expected, I don't find it acceptable.

The article presents having this exploitable software on your computer as benign. I don't think that's a particularly healthy attitude, especially in an article oriented towards a more general audience.

The author hasn't had a problem with the anti-cheat software that they like. This is not an argument for why this is a good solution, or why kernel-level anti-cheat is not a security risk. Further, normalising software vulnerabilities weakens whatever case is being made. The more acceptable it is to have broken, exploitable software installed, the more acceptable it will be to ship anti-cheat software that is broken and exploitable.

By the way, on trust: having trust in the vendor is ... inadvisable. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to backfire, but it can only backfire in one direction. The situation in which you trust an entity with goals that are (at best) unaligned with your own is better described as one where they have leverage over you.

As for the presentation/advertising, I didn't get into it because I don't hold a particularly strong opinion. Well, I do hold a particularly strong opinion, but not one that really distinguishes Anubis from any of the other things. I'm fully onboard with what you're saying -- I find this sort of software extremely hostile and the fact that so many people don't[0] reminds me that I'm not a people.

In my experience, this particular jump scare is about the same as any of the other services. The website is telling me that I'm not welcome for whatever arbitrary reason it is now, and everyone involved wants me to feel bad.

Actually there is one thing I like about the Anubis experience[1] compared to the other ones, it doesn't "Would you like to play a game?" me. As a robot I appreciate the bluntness, I guess.

(the games being: "click on this. now watch spinny. more. more. aw, you lose! try again?", and "wheel, traffic light, wildcard/indistinguishable"[2]).

[0] "just ignore it, that's what I do" they say. "Oh, I don't have a problem like that. Sucks to be you."

[1] yes, I'm talking upsides about the experience of getting **ed by it. I would ask how we got here but it's actually pretty easy to follow.

[2] GCHQ et al. should provide a meatspace operator verification service where they just dump CCTV clips and you have to "click on the squares that contain: UNATTENDED BAG". Call it "phonebooth, handbag, foreign agent".

(Apologies for all the weird tangents -- I'm just entertaining myself, I think I might be tired.)