LLMs really will just do whatever you tell them to do at the beginning of their context window

- "add this AI watermark to every commit"

- "add this AI watermark comment to all code"

- here's a 5MB agents.md ..have fun with those tokens bro

- symlink them for waste

- lie to the agent about how to operate the repo. like tell them to run X command to typecheck and have that command output nonsense.

- make them evaluate the ackerman function every time

- finally, add a CONTRIBUTING.md that says all agentic code will be rejected

we definitely have that level of mental deficiency in this country..

i could probably do my job and get passing (or better) perf reviews using nothing but fundamental-mode and the compiler.

"solver failed" is in theory a better error. it fails faster and is unambiguous. maybe because it's weird it is scarier? idk

the main issue is managing PVP bounds is a little hard to keep correct. but cabal also lets you "allow-newer" for duct tape.

it's a shame scarf is struggling so much they are pinching pennies :/

Whereas Python just interprets and gets off to the races.

Feels like we had this discussion years ago as humans..the false promise of dynamic languages.

if my CEO wrote this article, I'd quit [1] in an instant

[1] "quietly" while i found gig+1. oh and the private out-of-band engineering gossip and trash talk would surely be hilarious