I feel like it implies "it's harder to make a word out of 'C++' than it is for things that already naturally evolved as words people say like 'Ruby', 'Python', or 'Rust'".

How do you make sure you don't create bugs in the code you write without an LLM? I imagine for most people, the answer is a combination of self-review and testing. You can just do those same things with code an LLM helps you write and at that point you have the same level of confidence.

It’s much harder to understand code you didn’t write than code you wrote.

Yes, that's the fundamental tradeoff. But if the amount of time you save writing the code is higher than the amount of extra time you need to spend reading it, the tradeoff is worth it. That's going to vary from person to person for a given task though, and as long as the developer is actually spending the extra time reading and understanding the code, I don't think the approach matters as much as the result.

At least for me, the signal I'm sending is "I care more about how comfortable I am in my clothes than I do about what other people are inferring about them". The point isn't that people aren't receiving some sort of signal about me based on that, it's that the signal that they might receive is entirely irrelevant to my motivations. That itself might be a signal, but it's incidental to the actual choice I'm making, which is entirely personal.

> I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code

What? Why? Are you really that bothered by other people wearing stuff that you wouldn't personally want to wear? I can't even imagine going through life with strong feelings about how other people should dress; it legitimately sounds exhausting.

Would you go to a wedding dressed like a slob? Would you go to an elegant restaurant in sweats? If you go to pick up your date, and she opens the door wearing track shorts and a worn t-shirt, how would you feel?

When I'd pick up my date, and she had obviously spent a lot of time on her appearance, it'd make me feel like a million bucks.

When I got married, my spouse and I told people to wear whatever they wanted because we didn't really care. I also never cared at all about what we were wearing on our dates because what I enjoy about spending time with people is not seeing them present themselves in a way that I tell them to. I would go to a restaurant in sweats if I were allowed to.

I fundamentally do not understand what reason everyone else should have to dress to please you compared to themselves. Seeing everyone else as props to fit your preferred aesthetic rather than people who's desires about their own appearances are more important than what you want them to look like just seems selfish to me.

It's a free country and you can dress as you please.

But people will judge you by how you dress, and you will miss opportunities as a result, and you'll never know that this is happening.

As I mentioned earlier, people do react to me differently depending on how I dress. And I've known many people who align with your views on this, and they've all wondered why opportunity passed them by (or they realized they needed to change).

Can I ask: suppose you were charged with a crime. Your lawyer showed up in track shorts. Would you get another lawyer? I sure would.

A wedding is a social event with friends and family. I am going there to see the people. A flight is a functional form of transport which is shared out of necessity. I am going there to pay as little mind to the other people as possible

P.S. If you're a real estate agent, and you drive to a customer in a shoddy car, you aren't going to make a sale.

Given that we're talking about terminals, I'd argue there's a pretty good precedent for "hidden" meaning "not visible by default but possible to view at the expense of less clarity and extra noise"; no one th

And in turn, that discussion was addressed explicitly by this blog post, which is essentially a summary of the conversation that has been taking place across multiple venues.

I don't know a lot about The Register, but I thought it was a news platform?

Although, this post surely isn't "news" as much as it is, as you said, a summary of a conversation being held on other platform(s).

So maybe it is just a blog post?

At one of my previous jobs some of my coworkers and I had an in-joke about how it was possible to tell which of the emails from the CEO were written directly by him or not based on whether it used the spelling "pls" for "please" because of how often he liked to use it. It hadn't occurred to me to view this phenomenon in the way that the article does, but at least in my experience it certainly seems to be accurate.

A CEO saying “please”, regardless of how it’s spelt, is itself an anomaly ;)

He’s saying half the word, at least… pretty good for a CEO.

This might just be me being uninformed as someone who doesn't drive but how are you seeing what wifi networks are available so quickly right after being cut off? My very naive instinct is that looking at your phone or opening up a menu with the available wifi networks on your car's display seems like it would require a noticeable decrease in attention to the road, so I'd almost expect an uptick in being cut off from other people who are annoyed with your driving.

Small town, phone is on a dash mounted holder. Sometimes I leave Wigle up just to eye every now and then to see how much crap I'm picking up while war driving.

I am not without sin when it comes to driving a car.

I feel like the goal is to avoid buying something broken in the first place, not just to be able to tell if you've bought something that turns out to be broken

Yeah, this seems to be a common thing nowadays, although often with the value cited as "simplicity". I've always found it a bit odd because it seems to me like there are tradeoffs where making things at one level of granularity more clear or simple (or whatever you want to call it) will come at the cost of making things less clear and simple if you zoom in or out a bit at what the code is doing. Assembly is more "clear" in terms of what the processor is doing, but it makes the overall control flow and logic of a program less clear than a higher level language. Explicitly defining when memory is allocated and freed makes the performance characteristics of a program more clear, but it's "ceremony" compared to a garbage collected language that doesn't require manually handling that by default.

I think my fundamental issue with this sort of prioritization is that I think that there's a lot of value in being able to jump between different mental models of a program, and whether something is clear or absolutely ridden with "ceremony" can be drastically different depending on those models. By optimizing for exactly one model, you're making programs written in that language harder to think about in pretty much every other model while quickly hitting diminishing returns on how useful it is to try to make that one level of granularity even more clear. This is especially problematic when trying to debug or optimize programs after the initial work to write them is complete; having it be super clear what each individual line of code is doing isolation might not be enough to help me ensure that my overall architecture isn't flawed, and similarly having a bunch of great high-level abstractions won't necessarily help me notice bugs that can live entirely in one line of code.

I don't think these are specific use cases that a language can just consider to be outside of the scope in the same way they might choose not to support systems programming or DSLs or whatever; programmers need to be able to translate the ideas of how the program works into code and then diff between them to identify issues at both a macro and micro level regardless of what types of programs they're working on.