hegstal

Humans are fallible, so we review the code. They "hallucinate" and produce mistakes and go in the wrong direction. We evolved an entire discipline around processes, tools, reviews etc. to help remedy (not solve!) this.

For some reason, the moment those humans are being replaced by fallible, stochastic machines, we decide to just throw the baby out with the bathwater entirely and no longer leverage critical parts of this pipeline? Because it's inefficient and we're bottlenecking the process? The magic of LLMs has quite literally bought us more cycles to do this stuff, not less!

I use the things every day to an extreme degree and still I don't think I will ever quite understand the leaps in logic required to arrive at this position.

On the other hand, given there is prior art in Elfeed, why wouldn't it rapidly converge on feature parity?

One of the games they are also going after is Detroit: Become Human, and they have gone after things like GTA in the past. Just because they claim they are going after things for those reasons doesn't mean that's actually an accurate claim as to what they are trying to go after. Though it's good to point out who is actually (supposedly) responsible.

The anti-social 10x developer is more often than not the anti-social 1x developer that makes everyone else move at 0.1x or worse. Not that I directly blame them for it - there is far too much focus on the individual here. It's not so common they are bad people, but more that their own management doesn't provide them with the incentives to behave any other way. It's all about incentives. If the incentives are there, the parties involved will inevitably find a way to compromise in a way that works for them, but if the incentives are fundamentally misaligned, there is no way this gets resolved. The only option is to run.