This is the way. I use gh copilot and have opus interrogate me and write the plan, then gpt review the plan and provide feedback; repeat this multiple times until gpt is either satisfied or starts to nitpick on unimportant stuff. Then sanity check the plan myself and have gpt implement it.
Each implementation is also reviewed by me before merging to master. I complete PRs only when I'm satisfied with the implementation, my feedback is addressed, and I fully understand what is going on. Agents are the replacement for typing and productivity multipliers.
I have big picture view of the product, each plan implements only a part of it, scoped to avoid merging unreviwed slop. Probably slower, but result is much better.
As a fastmail user I'm glad there was no announcement. Every time a company starts telling me about some bright future, this usually means my user experience is about to sink.
I asked Claude to describe an app I was working on and it managed to describe the purpose of the app by looking only at implementation, no relevant docs in the repo. This was truly oh shit moment and I'm using AI assistance on that app since then.
This would be very unwise from security standpoint. Internal access to customer stuff is granular and made hard for internal staff to gain, to minimize chances of screw up intentional or not.
When things must be shipped quickly, shit breaks and corners are cut; large orgs are full of disfunction. Not sure if such insight was worth of setting your own career on fire.
The irony! My router died literally an hour ago, and I was on bestbuy to buy a new one. Over 5g connection. That was probably the worst shopping experience I had in a while...
Seriously! I have too many years of software development experience, but I use Visual Studio UX to handle pretty much all git operations. And always merge.
I have better things to do in my life than "internalizing" anything that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
"Once those additional vaccines are off the "routine" schedule, they'll be pulled by the suppliers, because it eliminates exemption from lawsuits"
Why is this bad? From one of the threads - "There IS scrutiny on vaccines, by the scientific and medical community - your "scrutiny" (as presumably neither a PhD in a relevant field or MD) is not valuable or relevant. There is decades of research that says that currently recommended vaccines are safe and effective."
OK, then there won't be grounds for lawsuits or lawsuits will be easily dismissed.
"you can be sure there'll be a bunch of crackpot right-wingers trying to prove each one is "bad" and they'll disappear sooner or later" - This logic can be applied to literally any product, be it a medicine, a vaccine, or any consumer good. Somehow pharma companies are able to sell any other drug without going into bankruptcy.
"But accepting the full S3Client here ties UploadReport to an interface that’s too broad. A fake must implement all the methods just to satisfy it."
In NET, one would simply mock one or two methods required by the implementation under the test. If I'm using Moq, then one would set it up in strict mode, to avoid surprises if unit under test starts calling something it didn't before.
Nobody denies property rights to CF and Voxility. At the same time, both companies went into the contract with the site in question. Did said site violate the contract? From my reading of the situation, no. "Contract obligations for me but not for thee?"
And to be clear: I do think that companies have capacity to terminate contracts, however, there either should be clear violation of ToS, or court's decision behind that. Neither seem to have had happened in this case.
If we think of CF/Voxility as of a "neutral infrastructure", CF and Voxility shouldn't be "forced to host", but also shouldn't proactively shut down sites, unless there's an obvious violation of ToS. There's a process of forcing companies to do something, and it involves a judge and a jury.
I find it ironic to see cheering of these actions by The Verge, who is in the tank for "net neutrality". I don't like what site in question was hosting, but there're other ways of dealing with them.
Each implementation is also reviewed by me before merging to master. I complete PRs only when I'm satisfied with the implementation, my feedback is addressed, and I fully understand what is going on. Agents are the replacement for typing and productivity multipliers.
I have big picture view of the product, each plan implements only a part of it, scoped to avoid merging unreviwed slop. Probably slower, but result is much better.