I blame apple for making me run an old macOS version because I don't want to look at this ugly mess they've created.
I've been running macOS since 2008, and unless they manage to turn things around, my next laptop won't be an apple.
For anyone curious: "c" just means that it's a character device.
There is also "b" for block device (e.g. a disk, a partition, or even something like a loopback device) and "p" for FIFOs (similar to mkfifo).
The two numbers are just identifiers to specify the device, so in case of `5 1` it means the systems tty console, while `1 8` would mean "blocking random byte device" (mknod dev/random c 1 8)
I agree with this take, but I'm wondering what vibe coders are doing differently?
Are they mainly using certain frameworks that already have a rigid structure, thus allowing LLMs to not worry about code structure/software architecture?
Are they worry-free and just run with it?
Not asking rhetorically, I seriously want to know.
I've tried it multiple times, but even after spending 4 hours on a fresh project I don't feel like I know what the hell is going on anymore.
At that point I'm just guessing what the next prompt is to make it work.
I have no critical knowledge about the codebase that makes me feel like I could fix an edge case without reading the source code line by line (which at that point would probably take longer than 4 hours).
I don't understand how anyone can work like that and have confidence in their code.
They actually sued a lego youtuber (or threatened to sue - unsure) for using a lego brick in his logo.
this lead to him creating a new word for lego bricks "Klemmbausteine" which means "clamping building bricks".
You should remove any reference to LEGO from the website and the examples. LEGO is extremely protective of its brand (similar to / worse than
Nintendo) and does not want third parties using its name, because it is concerned that LEGO could become a generic term which could put its trademark at risk.
> Now, the researchers are working on further research to extend their technique to detect breathing [...]
Impressive from a technical standpoint, but super scary from a privacy standpoint.
Surely this must allow them to detect and differentiate between plosives, which is probably enough to infer what's being talked about.
> on internal, legacy codebases, enterprisey stuff
Or anything that breaks the norm really.
I recently wrote something where I updated a variable using atomic primitives. Because it was inside a hot path I read the value without using
atomics as it was okay for the value to be stale.
I handed it the code because I had a question about something unrelated and it wouldn't stop changing this piece of code to use atomic reads.
Even when I prompted it not to change the code or explained why this was fine it wouldn't stop.
Yes, for me it is and it was even before this experience.
But, you know, there's a growing crowd that believes AI is almost at AGI level and that they'll vibe code their way to a Fortune 100 company.
Maybe I spend too much time rage baiting myself reading X threads and that's why I feel the need to emphasize that AI isn't what they make it out to be.
I wish they wouldn't use JS to demonstrate the AI's coding abilities - the internet is full of JS code and at this point I expect them to be good at it.
Show me examples in complex (for lack of a better word) languages to impress me.
I recently used OpenAI models to generate OCaml code, and it was eye opening how much even reasoning models are still just copy and paste machines.
The code was full of syntax errors, and they clearly lacked a basic understanding of what functions are in the stdlib vs those from popular (in OCaml terms) libraries.
Maybe GPT-5 is the great leap and I'll have to eat my words, but this experience really made me more pessimistic about AI's potential and the future of programming in general.
I'm hoping that in 10 years niche languages are still a thing, and the world doesn't converge toward writing everything in JS just because AIs make it easier to work with.
It showed me once again how little bash I know even after all those years.
I checked the examples to see if only set -e is dangerous or also set -o like the author suggested and sure enough it's just as bad es set -e.
You just got to thoroughly check your bash scripts and do proper error handling.
I blame apple for making me run an old macOS version because I don't want to look at this ugly mess they've created. I've been running macOS since 2008, and unless they manage to turn things around, my next laptop won't be an apple.