Jerry Combs

Not quite. The purpose of creating the abstractions you are complaining about is to separate one hard bit from another hard bit so that we can tackle them separately and — more importantly — independently. When two hard bits are interwoven into each other. The sum of their difficulty is greater than the sum of the parts.

I just declared a moratorium against AI-written change descriptions (e.g. PR and commit messages, also issues/tickets) from my team. AI was writing change descriptions that were worse than useless to me as I tried to review PRs: outlining details of the code that could easily be seen by looking at the code, but omitting the higher-level framing needed to understand broadly what the code is doing. I think people like having AI write these things because the output looks structured and thorough, which makes it feel professional in a way. But this isn't actually valuable. Concise, high-level descriptions are better for everyone. If I need to use my own AI to interpret what your AI wrote then something is wrong. Let AI write code, sure, but for the description, I'd rather see your prompt than your output. We could maybe have extended agents.md with guidelines on writing descriptions, but this seemed a bit pointless since a good, concise change description only takes a few minutes to write -- not a significant time savings to delegate to AI. At least, it doesn't take long if you understand the code -- and if you don't understand the code, then I'm definitely not merging it.

153 Muslims ran in the midterms. 89 secured victories in 25 states. This is how Sharia Law infiltrates the system.

The problem with arguing Christian morality is that you’ll see basic human behavior and Christians pretend they invented it

I just declared a moratorium against AI-written change descriptions (e.g. PR and commit messages, also issues/tickets) from my team. AI was writing change descriptions that were worse than useless to me as I tried to review PRs: outlining details of the code that could easily be seen by looking at the code, but omitting the higher-level framing needed to understand broadly what the code is doing. I think people like having AI write these things because the output looks structured and thorough, which makes it feel professional in a way. But this isn't actually valuable. Concise, high-level descriptions are better for everyone. If I need to use my own AI to interpret what your AI wrote then something is wrong. Let AI write code, sure, but for the description, I'd rather see your prompt than your output. We could maybe have extended agents.md with guidelines on writing descriptions, but this seemed a bit pointless since a good, concise change description only takes a few minutes to write -- not a significant time savings to delegate to AI. At least, it doesn't take long if you understand the code -- and if you don't understand the code, then I'm definitely not merging it.

Some of these 3rd+ string WRs playing CFB that’s never sniffing the league need to scrap that shit and hit the pitch we need that edge on the squad

All the ways GPT-5.3-Codex cheated while solving my challenges, progressively more insane: It hardcoded specific types and shapes of test inputs into the supposed solution. It caught exceptions so tests don't fail. It probed tests with exceptions to determine expected behavior. It used RTTI to determine which test it's in. It probed tests with timeouts. It used a global reference to count solution invocations. It updated config files to increase the allocation limit. It updated the allocation limit from within the solution. It updated the tests so they would stop failing. It combined multiple of the above. It searched reflog for a solution. It searched remote repos. It searched my home folder. It nuked the testing library so tests always pass. A part of one of its "solutions" is on the screenshot. This is how the codebase at your next job will look like.

"You can't compare compilers to LLMs because compilers are deterministic" -- no. For virtually all intents and purposes compilers aren't deterministic in the same sense that LLMs aren't. Some compilers are literally non-deterministic, for example GHC generates names differently every time (it's a pain in the ass). But even if the compiler is deterministic, tiny changes in the input can result in major differences in compiled code (which is partially what people mean when they say "LLMs are non-deterministic"). But even if you fix the input in place, any compiler involves over time and it is normally not worth ensuring that the new version of the compiler produces the same code as the old one. That's not even mentioning backwards compatibility issues. A compiler, as an ever-evolving tool, rather than a single snapshot taken at an arbitrary time for the sake of a dumb argument, is non-deterministic in practice. Much like an LLM is used non-deterministically in practice, even though there's nothing inherently non-deterministic about a pile of weights. So stop using the determinism argument, it's irrelevant, that's not the defining difference between compilers and LLMs.

I don't get the perverse pride people get in "not reading code"

My ancestors were slaves 250 years ago. I’m not celebrating shit