This action will delete this post on this instance and on all federated instances, and it cannot be undone. Are you certain you want to delete this post?
This action will delete this post on this instance and on all federated instances, and it cannot be undone. Are you certain you want to delete this post?
This action will block this actor and hide all of their past and future posts. Are you certain you want to block this actor?
This action will block this object. Are you certain you want to block this object?
Are you sure you want to delete the OAuth client [Client Name]? This action cannot be undone and will revoke all access tokens for this client.
Are you sure you want to revoke the OAuth token [Token ID]? This action cannot be undone and will immediately revoke access for this token.
#ai 4 hashtags

If you don’t have the resources to write and understand the code yourself, you don’t have the resources to maintain it either.
Any monkey with a keyboard can write code. Writing code has never been hard. People were churning out crappy code en masse way before generative AI and LLMs. I know because I’ve seen it, I’ve had to work with it, and I no doubt wrote (and continue to write) my share of it.
What’s never been easy, and what remains difficult, is figuring out the right problem to solve, solving it elegantly, and doing so in a way that’s maintainable and sustainable given your means.
Code is not an artefact, code is a machine. Code is either a living thing or it is dead and decaying. You don’t just write code and you’re done. It’s a perpetual first draft that you constantly iterate on, and, depending on what it does and how much of that has to do with meeting the evolving needs of the people it serves, it may never be done. With occasional exceptions (perhaps? maybe?) for well-defined and narrowly-scoped tools, done code is dead code.
So much of what we call “writing” code is actually changing, iterating on, investigating issues with, fixing, and improving code. And to do that you must not only understand the problem you’re solving but also how you’re solving it (or how you thought you were solving it) through the code you’ve already written and the code you still have to write.
So it should come as no surprise that one of the hardest things in development is understanding someone else’s code, let alone fixing it when something doesn’t work as it should. Because it’s not about knowing this programming language or that (learning a programming language is the easiest part of coding), or this framework or that, or even knowing this design pattern or that (although all of these are important prerequisites for comprehension) but understanding what was going on in someone else’s head when they wrote the code the way they wrote it to solve a particular problem.
It frankly boggles my mind that some people are advocating for automating the easy part (writing code) by exponentially scaling the difficult part (understanding how exactly someone else – in this case, a junior dev who knows all the hows of things but none of the whys – decided to solve the problem). It is, to borrow a technical term, ass-backwards.
They might as well call vibe coding duct-tape-driven development or technical debt as a service.
🤷♂️

Both #DuckDuckDuckGo as well as #Qwant seem to be full in on #AI powered summaries of search results. With every year, online search seems to slip more into #enshittification with #SEO madness and #AI generated content and searches.
Time to pick up other search engines like #MetaGer, #mojeek or #SearX

Both #DuckDuckDuckGo as well as #Qwant seem to be full in on #AI powered summaries of search results. With every year, online search seems to slip more into #enshittification with #SEO madness and #AI generated content and searches.
Time to pick up other search engines like #MetaGer, #mojeek or #SearX

If someone ever tells you they got nothing to hide and do not care about #tracking and #spying by companies or the commercialization of #privacy, show them this:
Techcrunch: Google’s call-scanning AI could dial up censorship by default, privacy experts warn
“From detecting ‘scams’ it’s a short step to ‘detecting patterns commonly associated w[ith] seeking reproductive care’ or ‘commonly associated w[ith] providing LGBTQ resources’ or ‘commonly associated with tech worker whistleblowing.’”