HN user
I just don’t see how one can say that building things reliably good is easy now when the company providing these tools can’t even do it well.
What do you mean? Claude cli is wildly successful. Why do they need to re-write?
You working in some "we replaced MS Access with another high-level language tool"-place is so far off this level of engineering
You might have a point buried in your post somewhere, but I can't find it because your personal attack obscures it.
Definitely not the best argument presented.
He isn't presenting an argument. He doesn't have to, and it would be fruitless to do so, because at this point anyone who denies AI coding is good is just burying their head in the sand, and the argument will be pointless. He's doing the correct thing, just ignore those views and get on with things.
Crazy that this hasn't got more traction here. Maybe people missed this thread.
Agentic cli based coding "got good" (around Oct/Nov 2025), and after just a short trial period, most devs in our company were convinced enough to start using it. The graph from "not using it much" to "95% of code written by AI" was incredibly steep. It was obvious from around that point, but particularly from around Opus 4.6 that this was actually, very, very good, provided you understand the failure cases and worked to eliminate them.
Ever since then the story has been about the % of developers denying it can write anything decent dwindling, and right now there are very few left who say this. Places like reddit and HN seem to attract a lot of them though, so weirdly, despite in the real world most professional software developers using these tools prolifically, it can seem as though it is 50/50 here.
When even someone like Linus Torvalds (the most crotchety of crotchetiers) is accepting it, you must know you're on the wrong side by denying it at this point. Surely the cognitive dissonance must be grating?
I'm on the verge of trying out a home project (Rust) with codex. ChatGPT suggested I start with the codex app and vs code. What made you switch?
Thanks. I haven't been checked. People always mention this though, so maybe it's common. But some people are just bad sleepers even without sleep apnea?
What you mean is "it's really not bad for me".
Noise pollution is horrible. It is jarring and causes stress (health issues), and poor sleep (health issues).
This isn't just a vague immaterial thing, this is a genuine negative impact on people's health and by extension life expectation. If people could "just ignore it", obviously they would, right? Some of us can't. Luckily I moved away from most noise and live in a quiet area now, but nothing is stopping some arsehole with a modified exhaust driving down my road every night. It could start happening at any point. At which point, I'd want laws to stop it happening.
What exactly is sleep apnea?
Melatonin works well to help me get to sleep, but it doesn't keep me asleep. My issue is waking multiple times in the night, mostly because I'm just uncomfortable, but my brain will immediately be thinking of some work or personal task and spinning. I solve this by putting on an audiobook each time, and that focuses my attention, and I'm asleep again in 5 minutes. So, I have developed "solutions" to my sleep problems, but they don't really fix the underlying issues.
Also, I don't take melatonin often, only when I seem to need to reset my sleep cycle, and I only take about 200-300 micrograms.
Why do you take so much? 5mg is a lot, according to the studies.
Disclaimer: I love git, it is by far the best version control system I've used in nearly 25+ years.
But, his point is objective, so he doesn't need to provide subjective proof to you.
Do lots of people find git confusing? Yes. It is a very common view.
Therefore, based only on observed evidence, we can pretty confidently say that git is confusing. Is it as confusing as something else, or as confusing as the reputation? We can't tell, because those are subjective opinions.
The statement "it isn't as confusing as people think" is pretty meaningless here, because you can only judge from your own frame of reference. If it wasn't as confusing as people think, why do they think it is confusing? Are they all stupid?
It depends on what you think "the right thing is".
Our right thing sounds different to your right thing. Our right thing is PRs less than 500~ lines, and a single logical change only if the overall goal is complex.
For example, in your "right thing" it sounds like you'll have a refactor commit somewhere in the chain of commits in your PR, that might introduce 2000 lines of change, and other logically coupled changes in the same PR, all resulting in a large PR.
We prefer smaller, complete, mergable PRs. And therefore we normally only ever start with a single commit in the PR because the dev squashes everything before raising.
I don't know which way is better, but I do know that when I come across large PRs, I zone out and review quality drops. In fact, I just don't approve them.
Which deities don't you believe in? I don't believe in all of them. Presumably you don't believe in almost all of them?
That is an incredibly insulting comment. I am married, two children, have lead a fantastic fulfilling life. Just because I don't believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe doesn't mean I am an "Edgelord".
Remember the phrase, you also don't believe in God. There are hundreds of gods you don't believe in.
Sorry to be nihilist, but you never had any objective value if you're thinking in these terms.
As far as we know, the universe "just is". There is no universal objective value of human beings, at all, any one of us.
You have to make or find your own value in the universe. I try not to think too hard about the nihilist side and try to appreciate that for some unfathomable reason, I seem to have what I call consciousness - the ability to observe the present and have it superimposed on the past, and what may be the future, leading me to "experience" things. I don't understand it, no-one does (some people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect think they do, but they don't), and yet, here we are.
So it doesn't matter to me if machines perform better than I do, because already lots of other people do. Just try to find your own joy or meaning, somehow.
My apologies I was. But nevertheless, these are still these are elected representatives of the member states. These are not unknown "bureaucrats from Brussels".
Democratically elected leaders, conspire together in a confederation, to elect a body that is above and beyond the leaders of the democracy.
Sorry, what are you talking about here?
The Commission is subservient to the EU Council. The EU Council consists, by design, of all the heads of the nation states.
The design of the EU which gives the member states elected politicians (heads of state) the most power is very intentional.
This is a bizarre argument. Emmanuel Macron sits on the EU Council. He has no democratic mandate?
The entire point of the EU design is that ultimately the member states national governments (the heads of) are the most powerful and set the direction. It was done this way because people didn't like the idea of EU ministers. There was even a huge objection to the change that introduced the Parliament, the MEPs that you are now saying should hold ultimate power.
And this is the problem. People decide up-front that the EU is "not democratic" and then they adjust their arguments and data to fit this narrative.
The EU Council are the democratically elected leaders of the member states. How is them deciding the direction not "democratic"?
Please could you cite your sources for this.
I think what you've typed is not representative of what happened here. My understanding is that the EU Council forced this second-reading, not the Commission.
To provide evidence for my argument: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
Look at "Timeline". This is the Council, not the Commission. This is your elected heads of state. This is "democracy" in action.
"Council and EPP attempting to bypass Parliament With negotiators still deadlocked on core issues, the Council and the European People's Party (EPP) are trying to sidestep Parliament by reviving the expired Chat Control 1.0. The Council plans to fast-track a rewritten proposal with identical content, effectively circumventing the Commission's right of initiative, democratic oversight, and a fresh opinion from the European Data Protection Supervisor (source)."
Because it is so insanely useful, having it cut off is quite jarring.
You didn't address my point at all.
The member states want to reactivate the transitional regulation for voluntary monitoring of messages by technology groups, which expired on April 3, in an expedited procedure. The Council adopted a corresponding position for a “new” regulation on Thursday via written procedure to close a looming legal loophole and increase pressure on MEPs.
This is the EU Council pushing it. The elected heads of state of the member nations. The Commission just do their bidding.
For what it's worth, I love GeForce Now. I no longer need to maintain a gaming PC, find somewhere to keep it, etc. I was so sceptical that streaming games could work but it does, and it is amazing.
Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this.
Excuse me? That is quite an assertion. You're saying the EU Commission, the civil servants appointed by the EU Council, are somehow controlling the EU Council to push this agenda?
I don't believe that is true. Please provide evidence.
In the article, it talks explicitly about this being driven by the heads of state.
You're blaming the wrong people and making this worse.
The article is literally about the EU Council, the elected heads of states of all the EU nations. The elected leaders of the EU nations really, really want chat control. The Commission has nothing to do with this.
The EU Commission does the bidding of the elected EU Council. The Commission is sort of a civil service.
Denmark seem to be the ones pushing chat control the hardest.
What sort of proof are you expecting from another poster on hn?
I am what you might call an AI enthusiast. I've embraced it for coding, and find it has refreshed me.
But the stuff you're talking about here drives me nuts.
Everything voted on was already decided between the commission and lobbyists before behind closed doors.
Please stop spreading this nonsense. The Commission acts on directives from our elected national representatives. They get a broad or narrow agenda and work towards that.