You could do this (there are websites you can find easily) but Pelosi isn’t in power anymore and wouldn’t be in the loop on Trump’s corruption which is way more significant than just knowing which company the government is going to award a big procurement contract to or whatever.

The Trump corruption seems to have gone with crypto shenanigans and you can’t track them. We just know that someone made >$100M by doing crypto shorts exactly one minute before Trump posted about more insane tarrifs on China, but there’s no way to know who did that and we can’t track them. They’ll probably make similar amounts of money on the inevitable TACO.

Given what Peter Thiel’s been talking about lately, that’s not all that far fetched.

Yeah I remember a VC guy during the dot com boom was saying they were just about to invest in another start up (following the same plan they’d been doing for a few at that point) and they got a call form upstairs telling them to pull out. The next day the bubble burst.

These bubbles burst not based on random chance. The big guys know the business isn’t sustainable, but if they keep their money in it the shares maintain their value. Then one day they all pull out and pop! The bubble bursts. But they’ll make money on that too by shorting everything.

They make money when the stocks go up and they make money when the stocks go down. And they have enough money to make those stocks go up or down.

Nah, it’s still a thing unfortunately. There will have to be a bunch of business go bankrupt because of it before managers start to think it’s a bad idea.

Yes. The original post that coined the term was using “vibe coding” to indicate how problematic it is to build software by generating code based on vague prompts.

But a lot of people didn’t read the entire post and just thought the term sounded cool and used it as if it was positive thing.

Now we’re seeing the negative impacts of vibe coding, just as the original post predicted. So it started as derogatory, somehow became something positive, but it’s going back to being derogatory again.

Also rebase is usually better than merge.

For sure. I copy JSON from swagger and get a Typescript interface all the time. It’s boring stuff to do manually, and yeah there are definitely tools I could use for this, but it’s not as easy. It’s basic stuff, and the AIs can do it reliably.

I have a bunch of chat contexts for things like this. SQL -> DTO object, JSON -> Typescript, etc. So it’s kinda a swiss army knife kind of tool where it can do a bunch of basic stuff. Sure there are specific tools for each of these things, but it’s easier to have all of those basic functions in one place.

But this week I was doing some very complicated logic that required in depth knowledge of the data structures and consideration for a whole bunch of edge cases… so I didn’t even touch an LLM this week. Though next week I might add some new tables to the DB, I’ll think about the data relationships and get that right, and then I’ll have the AIs deal with all of the boring shit involved in getting it to the FE.

They left one bit for the other cultures use.

There was a push for an international minimum tax rate from some guy. But that guy was old and so people decided to replace that old guy with an old guy that’s a billionaire, but because he’s crazy he doesn’t seem as old I guess. But anyway, it’s highly doubtful something like that will happen any time soon.

If I’m clicking around on a website and find a gallery of images, that’s something I’m supposed to have access to. If I start typing in URLs that aren’t linked anywhere on the site, then I’m accessing stuff the site hasn’t explicitly indicated I have access to. If I’m doing this with the intent of getting data and distributing to others, then yeah that would be illegal.

The law allows for someone to exercise judgement. The people who do this are not so coincidentally called Judges. If the 4chan guys had have been white hat and reported the issue to the site owners, then they’d be fine. But it’s obvious to anyone their intent was to get private information, they poked around to find some private information, and then distributed that private information to others causing a privacy violation. Yes, it was easier to do than it should have been, but it’s obvious they had malicious intent and it’s obvious they were accessing information they weren’t supposed to access.

A crime being really easy to commit doesn’t make it no longer a crime. Many times I’ve seen things that I could easily steal, but I don’t steal things when I have an opportunity to do so because a) stealing is wrong and b) saying “they just left this thing out there in a place anyone could steal it” would not be any kind of legal defense. Simply because you’re presented an opportunity to do a crime doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to do a crime, both legally and morally speaking.

Terrible analogy. You have permission to read books in a library.

Forgetting to lock your door isn’t granting permission to people enter your house, and it doesn’t grant people permission to take your valuables. It may be neglectful to leave your door unlocked, but it doesn’t imply granting permission to enter your house.

Same goes with computer security. Leaving your computer insecure may be neglectful, but it does not imply someone has permission to take your data.

Yeah, if I leave my house door wide open for a few weeks and I get robbed, it’s still burglary.

I just prefer an exception be thrown if I forget to set something so it’s likely to happen as soon as I test it and will be easy to find where I missed something.

I don’t think a language is going to prevent someone from making a human error when writing code, but it should make it easy to diagnose and fix it when it happens. If you call it null, “”, empty, None, undefined or anything else, it doesn’t change the fact that sometimes the person writing the code just forgot something.

Abstracting away from the problem just makes it more fuzzy on where I just forgot a line of code somewhere. Throwing an exception means I know immediately that I missed something, and also the part of the code where I made the mistake. Trying to eliminate the exception doesn’t actually solve the problem, it just hides the problem and makes it more difficult to track down when someone eventually notices something wasn’t populated.

Sometimes you want the program to fail, and fail fast (while testing) and in a very obvious way. Trying to make the language more “reliable” instead of having the reliability of the software be the responsibility of the developer can mean the software always “works”, but it doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to do.

Is the software really working if it never throws an exception but doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to do?

Even with qualitative measurements they can do stupid things.

For work I have to write code in C# and Microsoft found that null reference exceptions were a common issue. They actually calculated how much these issues cost the industry (some big number) and put a lot of effort into changing the language so there’s a lot of warnings when something is null.

But the end result is people just set things to an empty value instead of leaving it as null to avoid the warnings. And sure great, you don’t have null reference exceptions because a value that defaulted to null didn’t get set. But now you have issues where a value is an empty string when it should have been set.

The exception message would tell you exactly where in the code there’s a mistake, and you’ll immediately know there’s a problem and it’s more likely to be discovered by unit tests or QA. Something that’s an value that’s supposed to be set may not be noticed for a while and is difficult to track down.

So their research indicated a costly issue (which is ultimately a dev making a mistake) and they fixed it by creating an even more costly issue.

There’s always going to be things where it’s the responsibility of the developer to deal with, and there’s no fix for it at the language level. Trying to fix it with language changes can just make things worse.

Cowards bending the knee to the idiot king.

I mean, some of the taxanomic divisions do have common names as well - jawed fish and ray-finned fish

Searching for “jawed fish” takes me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnathostomata

But that’s jawed vertebrates. So I’m not sure which taxonomic group you’re referring to when you’re saying “jawed fish”. The wiki page indicates salamaders are in the Gnathostomata group. Are salamanders considered to be jawed fish?

I think this just goes to further prove that using english words for taxonomy just causes a lot of confusion. My search results for “jawed fish” also returns a lot of results from national park sites and yeah, that kind of terminology for a national park conversing with a layperson is fine. Close enough for a layperson, but for a biologist they probably should use Gnathostomata when that’s what they’re talking about.

Was that the weird chapter that was just a biology lesson, but was also completely wrong?

Probably, but it’s been awhile since I read it. But it would be insane to read Moby Dick expecting it to be a good biology text book. You have to read it as people’s understanding of biology and terminology in the past, which is why I referenced it in the context of the evolution of linguistics about ocean animals.

It’s why taxonomy uses latin for this… the definition of english words are based on common usage which isn’t going to line up to any kind of scientific categorization. English is always changing and scientific categorization is also always changing when there’s more empirical data. These changes are independent of each other so it was wisely decided long ago to not even try to make english words consistent with scientific taxonomy.

So in common usage, yeah it’s based around the general shape but it isn’t a whale (big mammal) a dolphin (a relatively smaller mammal). A shark might be called a fish but more likely someone will just call it a shark instead of just using just “fish”. This is fine for communication among laypeople, if marine biologists are having a conversation about those same animals, they break out the latin and there’s no confusion.

Also my understanding is that in medieval times, the word whale actually refereed to a specific species of whale… what we know call the Right Whale, which is nearly extinct. So a word for a species became a word for a group of species and then it was awkward how to refer to that original species. What kind of whale is that? “It’s a whale whale… you know the original whale… the proper whale… the right whale.” There’s actually a paragraph in Moby Dick about this.

English is weird and changes in weird ways. Just use latin if you want to be scientifically precise.

Obviously you need to consider how much ravioli you’re making when choosing which ravioli pot to take down from your ravioli pot shelf.

One time a VP decided to jump in and be a developer and he just pointed a bunch of cards when the dev that was really going to do the work was off for the day. Obviously the points were way too low, so I just padded out the rest of the cards knowing the 7 points on the cards the VP pointed was going to be the entire two week sprint for the other dev and I’d need to to whatever else was put into the sprint.

And that’s how I found out the Product Manager was putting the points into a spreadsheet to track how many points each individual dev was doing. He was actually upset at me for doing 20 points in the sprint. Sure, I padded them out, but why wasn’t he bothered by the cards that had too few points on them? Just upset his spreadsheet was screwed up, but couldn’t be angry at the VP that under-pointed a bunch of cards.

If the goal is to not have apps be too large, you probably don’t want to send the full variable and function names and all of the comments over the wire every time someone loads a webpage. That would be a very inefficient use of bandwidth, wouldn’t it?