A lot of the complaints about these tools seems to revolve around their current lack of ability to innovate for greenfield or overly complex tasks. I would agree with this assessment in their current state, but this sentiment of "I will only use AI coding tools when they can do 100% of my job" seems short-sighted.
The fact of the matter, in my experience, is that most of the day to day software tasks done by an individual developer are not greenfield, complex tasks. They're boring data-slinging or protocol wrangling. This sort of thing has been done a thousand times by developers everywhere, and frankly there's really no need to do the vast majority of this work again when the AIs have all been trained on this very data.
I have had great success using AIs as vast collections of lego blocks. I don't "vibe code", I "lego code", telling the AI the general shape and letting it assemble the pieces. Does it build garbage sometimes? Sure, but who doesn't from time to time? I'm experienced enough notice the garbage smell and take corrective action or toss it and try again. Could there be strange crevices in a lego-coded application that the AI doesn't quite have a piece for? Absolutely! Write that bit yourself and then get on with your day.
If the only thing you use these tools for is doing simple grunt-work tasks, they're still useful, and dismissing them is, in my opinion, a mistake.
The vast majority of engineers aren't refusing to use AI until it can do 100% of their job. They are just sick of being told it already can, when their direct experience contradicts that claim.
That website lists Hugo, the static site generator. What kind of self-hostable service does Hugo provide??? Confusing info like this makes me doubt the rest of the entries on that page.
I can tell you that technically Hugo has to be somewhere you control to generate a website, but I don't see the point in that discussion.
The list I can see on the site seems to be of tools you can self host or can help you create something that you can self host. That's it. It doesn't make sense to blame a site because a comment on HN didn't correctly describe the content of the website... like, the problem is the comment, not the site.
Do any of these guard against an empty value on either side ?
"export PATH=$DIR:$PATH -
That particular pattern is way too common, and is very dangerous if
you consider the case when [$DIR or] $PATH (or whatever your variable is, like
$LD_LIBRARY_PATH) isn’t set. Then, the value will be :/path/to/dir,
which usually means both /path/to/dir and the current directory,
which is usually both unexpected behaviour and a security concern."
I'm surprised both the blog post and all the other comments don't mention how it should have logic to check if the item exists in the path before adding it.
Otherwise you get duplicates added everytime you source your config.
Another option is to set the full $PATH value explicitly instead of doing an add thing for each directory. This avoids duplicates and the extra logic, but maybe isn't as convenient.
If you're patient, you can just hold 'up' anywhere and it will eventually clear the level. It started taking quite awhile at level 20 or so - I got bored and gave up.
Just plain census and GDP data shows that the richer you are, the fewer children you have. As poor countries climb out of poverty, their birth rate drops. As rich countries get richer, their birth rate drops below population-sustaining levels.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is exactly why the UN has predicted a slowing of population growth with an eventual peak of 10-11B in several decades.
However this article is suggesting a much more drastic slowing and much lower peak. I am interested in the evidence or assumptions that are different between these two forecasts.
> Its previous release projected that the world population would be around 10.88 billion in 2100 and would not yet have peaked.
> In this new release, the UN projects that the global population will peak before the end of the century – in 2086, at just over 10.4 billion people.
> There are several reasons for this earlier and lower peak. One is that the UN expects fertility rates to fall more quickly in low-income countries compared to previous revisions. It also expects less of a ‘rebound’ in fertility rates across high-income countries in the second half of the century.
>Middle class is shooting itself in the foot economically by having children, that's why there's such correlation.
Middle class are the worst off for having kids, at least here in Europe.
• The upper class can afford as many kids as they want, no problem.
• The lower class gets tax breaks and subsidies from the state according to how many kids they have and how low their income is, the more money they get from the state, so they also have a lot of kids because every extra kid means a net monetary benefit.
• The middle class gets the shaft as they bear the brunt of highest income tax brackets to fund the state coffers, and also get the lowest amounts of child subsidies because their income is considered good enough, so they're the ones having the least amount of kids.
That's sort of fascinating. I mean is that an absolute or relative thing? If we were all as rich as Bill Gates would we all have more children? Or if we were all as rich as Bill Gates - but Gates in turn was wealthier still - would the number of children we and he had remain the same?
Interesting question, I'd say both.
The harder it is to stay in the middle class (by arbitrary standard of living) or "ascend" by incorporating in Ireland, the more hesitant people are regarding children. F.e. if middle class population % is big (like in Czechia or Sweden), there is higher fertility.
In my personal experience the rich have a fairly bimodal distribution. My middle class friends have 1 or 2 kids. Most of my rich friends have 0 or 4+. The big families skew the average.
The fact of the matter, in my experience, is that most of the day to day software tasks done by an individual developer are not greenfield, complex tasks. They're boring data-slinging or protocol wrangling. This sort of thing has been done a thousand times by developers everywhere, and frankly there's really no need to do the vast majority of this work again when the AIs have all been trained on this very data.
I have had great success using AIs as vast collections of lego blocks. I don't "vibe code", I "lego code", telling the AI the general shape and letting it assemble the pieces. Does it build garbage sometimes? Sure, but who doesn't from time to time? I'm experienced enough notice the garbage smell and take corrective action or toss it and try again. Could there be strange crevices in a lego-coded application that the AI doesn't quite have a piece for? Absolutely! Write that bit yourself and then get on with your day.
If the only thing you use these tools for is doing simple grunt-work tasks, they're still useful, and dismissing them is, in my opinion, a mistake.
reply