"Oh you're doing work? That's so cute... we're gonna close whatever apps you had open, because we're updating now. We own your computer.
You had unsaved work? Too bad, it's gone, get bent."
This, a 1,000 times. I hate, hate, hate this "feature". My Macs don't do that. My Linux systems don't do that. The whole, "screw you, we don't care" attitude of Microsoft is quite appalling.
Microsoft now makes it very difficult to disable this feature. After a few registry edits, I thought I was able to put a stop to the madness. But, then it went to rebooting on its own again.
I keep telling Windows 10 to delay these updates by 1 week each time...
Curiously, Office apps have auto-save, so does IntelliJ, VSCode, and even Notepad nowadays.. "restore my work environment after a reboot" almost works, but some things do disappear (e.g. unsaved web input forms) that it's aggravating enough. I wonder if they'll make it mandatory for apps to persist more across restarts.
Ok, that requires them to be competent, if they're competent we won't even have what we have now.
"You don't need the "language model" part to run an autopilot, that's just silly."
I think most of us understood that reproducing what existing autopilot can do was not the goal. My inexpensive DJI quadcopter has an impressive abilities in this area as well. But, I cannot give it a mission in natural language and expect it to execute it. Not even close.
I am a huge proponent of using AI tools for software development. But until I see a vibe coded replacement for the Linux kernel, PostgreSQL, gcc, git or Chromium, I am just going to disagree with this premise. If I am on a system without Python installed, I don't see Claude saying, oh, you don't need to download it, I'll write the Python interpreter for you.
> I am a huge proponent of using AI tools for software development. But until I see a vibe coded replacement for the Linux kernel, PostgreSQL, gcc, git or Chromium, I am just going to disagree with this premise.
Did you read it?
It isn't saying that LLMs will replace major open source software components. It said that the "reward" for providing, maintaining and helping curate these OSS pieces; which is the ecosystem they exist in, just disappears if there is no community around it, just an LLM ingesting open source code and spitting out a solution good or bad.
We've already seen curl buckle under the pressure, as their community minded, good conscious effort to give back to security reports, collapsed under the weight of slop.
This is largely about extending that thesis to the entire ecosystem. No GH issues, no PRs, no interaction. No kudos on HN, no stars on github, no "cheers mate" as you pass them at a conference after they give a great talk.
Where did you get that you needed to see a Linux kernel developed from AI tools, before you think the article's authors have a point?
> This is largely about extending that thesis to the entire ecosystem. No GH issues, no PRs, no interaction. No kudos on HN, no stars on github, no "cheers mate" as you pass them at a conference after they give a great talk.
>> My guess is that you think iMessage is SMS-only
> No, there's Apple's proprietary protocol...
Earlier you asked: "But iMessage is already open?"
Now you are saying that iMessage uses "Apple's proprietary protocol". I hope now you understand that when people say that Apple iMessage is not open, they are not talking about the SMS protocol that Apple does not own.
I used Ralph recently, in Claude Code. We had a complex SQL script that was crunched large amounts of data and was slow to run even on tables that are normalized, have indexes for the right columns etc. We, the humans spent significant amount of time tweaking it. We were able to get some performance gains, but eventually hit a wall. That is when I let Ralph take a stab at it. I told it to create a baseline benchmark and I gave it the expected output. I told to keep iterating on the script until there was at least 3x improvement in performance number while the output was identical. I set the iteration limit to 50. I let it loose and went to dinner. When I came back, it had found a way to get 3x performance and stopped on the 20th iteration.
Is there another human that could get me even better performance given the same parameters. Probably yes. In the same amount of time? Maybe, but unlikely. In any case, we don't have anybody on our team that can think of 20 different ways to improve a large and complex SQL script and try them all in a short amount of time.
These tools do require two things before you can expect good results:
1. An open mind.
2. Experience. Lots of it.
BTW, I never trust the code an AI agent spits out. I get other AI agents, different LLMs, to review all work, create deterministic tests that must be run and must pass before the PR is ever generated. I used to do a lot of this manually. But now I create Claude skills that automate a lot of this away.
AI agent skills are very useful. Unlike MCP they do not waste context. Most of the time I am building skills that are very particular to my project. But occasionally I do use a skill that is more generic. Particularly when something is too new to have made it into the LLM training data set. Or not common enough.
> Just get off your ass and go and give them the message...
If I need to have all 4 members of the family meet me at the pool, first I need to go find each one of them. They could all be at different place. And then tell them individually to meet me at the pool? Is that the better solution you are proposing?
I work for a small company with a handful of devs. We don't have a dedicated devops person, so I do it all. Everything is self-hosted. Been that way for years. But, yeah, if I go on vacation and something foes screwy, the business is hosed. However, even if it were hosted on AWS or elsewhere, it would not be any better. If anything, it may be worse. Instead of a person being well versed in standards based tech, they'd have to be an AWS expert. Why would we want that?
I have recently started using terraform/tofu and ansible to automate nearly all of the devops operations. We are at a point where Claude Code can use these tools and our existing configs to make configuration changes, debug issues by reviewing logs etc. It is much faster at debugging an issue than I am and I know our stuff inside and out.
I am beginning to think that AI will soon force people to rethink their cloud hosting strategy.
You may not have meant to excuse the sad state we are in by presenting the "both sides are bad" argument. But it does have a strong whiff of it.
Both sides are bad. No doubt about it. It has always been that way. But, one side takes being bad to a whole new level.
Our choice has always been between bad and less bad. The voters decided to pull the lever for "massively bad" during the last presidential election because they could not tell the difference.
We get to give one bit of feedback to "the system" every four years. After four years of Trump, the feedback was "we don't want that". After four years of Biden, the feedback was "not that, either".
My impression of the US electorate is that they don't want illegal immigration, at least not in the volume and with the openness it was happening. They don't want immigrant trains rolling through Mexico. But they don't want the brutality and violence of the current crackdown, either.
They don't want trans people on womens' sports teams, and they don't want the US taking over Greenland.
And so on.
So after four years, the majority of voters were choosing "not Biden, and not the Biden things we don't like" rather than "yes Trump".
The place where it was "yes Trump" was the Republican primary. If you want to fix US politics, get involved with a political party - either one - and have some influence on who comes out of the primary process.
The politics of fear stoked by two sets of extremists egging eachother on is the core reason we're in this mess, the failure to reject both simultaneously and the desire to rule with feelings instead of facts caused it all.
I'm not a "whatabout" guy, I'm actively opposed to both extremes. The far left is just as capable of ruling with violence as the far right, they just haven't got the opportunity in this country yet.
The politics of emotion and absolutism is the cause, which flavor of extremism you pick isn't the core issue.
>The politics of fear stoked by two sets of extremists egging eachother on is the core reason we're in this mess, the failure to reject both simultaneously and the desire to rule with feelings instead of facts caused it all.
Pol Pot[0] was a leftist extremist. Chairman Mao[1] was a leftist extremist. As were the Red Brigades[2] and the Symbionese Liberation Army[3], etc., etc., ,etc. Who in the US Democratic Party advocates for the same things as those guys? Let's see. No one.
In fact, the only ones in the US who've shown an interest in nationalizing the means of production (c.f. Intel) or putting down the Intelligentsia and normalizing violence against those who criticize the regime are just one set of extremists. Because extremists end up going full circle -- because for them it's about power and not ideology.
The "far left" statistically doesn't even exist in the USA. Less than 1% of the population and less than 0.01% of elected politicians. Effectively zero. No major national or state politicians call for seizing the means of production, a centrally planned economy, widespread price controls, Great Leaps Forward, and so on. The far right has us all convinced that anything to the left of Reagan is "far left".
You can pretend all you want. The proof is in the reality of what we see. Mass illegal immigration is not a center-right or even left position. It's a "far left" position that has had enough political power to be enforced for years now.
That's the most disingenuous argument yet, that completely ignores reality.
The libertarian party does NOT advocate for illegal immigration today. Only once NAP-violating governments are abolished, do they contend that the harmful effects of unconstrained immigration are non-existent. They argue that if you want complete freedom of movement, you must first give up all claim to nonconsensual government force, including taxation and redistribution of wealth. And even the most radical of libertarians include a "non-aggression" exception. They support screening to exclude violent criminals, security threats, and health risks. All of which are impossible if there is no monitoring or reasonable enforcement.
You know _damn well_ that in the context of actual politics in America as they stand TODAY, open immigration is a FAR LEFT position. It's undeniable to anyone arguing in good faith.
The Libertarian Party does not put all of those caveats on their stance and you sure as hell didn't in your polemic post.
Your argument is nothing but pedantry anyway. The libertarian stance is that most immigration laws should be abolished. Whether or not the books on the laws reflect their stance doesn't change that is their stance. They advocate for open boarders and migration free from government interference.
Except that the 'radical left' part of the electorate holds ~0 sway over the people who actually get elected. The 'radical right', on the other hand, has fully purged the GOP of anyone who isn't with their program through either primaries, or the fear of getting primaried.
The "radical left" stayed home in the presidential election, 9 million of them decided Harris wasn't radical enough for them so they would rather not vote, giving Trump the 2.3 million vote popular margin. Of course electoral analysis would be a lot more complex, I'm not doing that.
Elected democrats are stuck between trying to appease the radical left and trying to actually govern along with republicans and those two are very incompatible goals because the radical left knows very little about actual government policy and just has a couple of very narrow issues that most of the country opposes that their social bubble convinces them are the only important issues in this country.
Democrats lost the last election because of the radicals AND didn't get any of their goals done. Democrats needed a more centrist charismatic leader and instead they keep nominating candidates who "deserve" the nomination opposed to the actual will of the people OR continue nominating ancient relics who needed to retire a decade earlier... 6 of whom died in office over a period of 13 months in a period where every vote counted.
In short, I blame stupid leftist radicals and corrupt self-interested Democratic cowards in office for our current situation.
This, a 1,000 times. I hate, hate, hate this "feature". My Macs don't do that. My Linux systems don't do that. The whole, "screw you, we don't care" attitude of Microsoft is quite appalling.
Microsoft now makes it very difficult to disable this feature. After a few registry edits, I thought I was able to put a stop to the madness. But, then it went to rebooting on its own again.
reply