about once a year I try signing up for X after friends tell me I really should be on there for news in certain niches.
multiple times now I've signed up with a fake name/handle/email/etc..., sometimes from a VPN, and within 10 minutes a friend usually tells me they see me as a recommendation to follow (they can tell, by the handle).
This isn't a criticism, but I do think this comment actually raises part of the problem. There are people on twitter telling people they should be on twitter, and it's apparently effective enough that at least some people are still signing up or trying to at least. The world needs more of the inverse, people telling those they care about who are on twitter to get off it.
And likewise, continuing to call it "Twitter" when that is long dead, which has amazingly positive brand association as near as I can tell entirely from the name doesn't do any of us a service.
If you want people to stop using it call it "X". Not something clever, like "Shitter" -- which I personally enjoy! Just call it by what it was intentionally renamed to:
"Oh you mean X? No I don't take part in that hateful stuff, sorry"
Nitter has to be logged into an account to read tweets so it can show them to you. Elon made it quite difficult to make even one account, let alone many. If you have an unused registered account, some Nitter instance operator would be happy to have it. The same is true for all the other alternative front-ends, like the ones for Instagram, and Play Store.
I agree very strongly. There's no debate about things that have 1000000 permutations in other languages. e.g. The correct format can always be checked by `go fmt` with no real config options. the end.
> ...And so many languages have an opinionated formatter these days
The crux of gp's post is for Go, there is no debate as 'go fmt' is the only one that matters. Black is great, but some people prefer Ruff, leading to ...debates about which formatter the team/org should use. Go's batteries-included philosophy makes those discussions moot on so many levels beyond formatting.
It's not hard, but when you go from project A to B you'll have to check which formatter is used; this is additional setup / overhead, plus context switch. With Go, there is no additional setup / overhead / context switching, all Go code is formatted the same way with the same tools.
This is important when dealing with large code bases and many projects, it lowers the barrier to entry by a lot. A common anecdote from Go developers is how easy it is to drop into a random codebase and just be able to read/comprehend it and work in it right away, and the ecosystem-global code style is an important aspect of that.
It's a silly argument and the lowest form of bike-shedding on the level of tabs vs commas. People with no other substantive contributions use formatting as a beard.
The first one to choose it (whatever it happens to be) wins and that's the end of it. If it isn't the end of it you've got a talent issue.
> Go works better than other languages for those who have what you call "a talent issue"
This is actually true and by design; a bit more nuanced from [0]: "Programmers working at Google are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family. The need to get programmers productive quickly in a new language means that the language cannot be too radical."
Talent is important, but doesn't scale. You can have the best of the best software developers but it's a moot point how talented they are at industrial scales (hundreds of applications, tens of millions of LOC, thousands of developers, tens of thousands of features, decades of work, etc)
Note that "early in their careers" from the perspective of the author is basically <20 years of experience.
I do. Bike sheds do need to be painted after all, but its many less people who have the technical experience to know how many feet away from the property line it must be.
And I'm thankful that they do, but also, Go was one of the first languages that really pushed for a standard code format - I'm actually surprised this wasn't a thing before. Or I suppose there was, like Checkstyle for Java or ESLint for JS, but they were not strongly opinionated or pushed by the core team.
This back-and-forth is a good example of why Go benefits from having a centralized linter. And uv isn't the official Python package manager even though it should be.
I don't get why this is a big issue. This isn't some recurrent decision to be made. It's something a lead decides once and the project follows. That's it. Many companies have style guides anyway (eg Google[1]); the choice of a formatter is much simpler.
Because at some point you have to interact with some other team or project that made a different decision. And whatever you picked might fall out of favor and lose support. There's already a graveyard of Python type linters, including Google's pytype.
Especially the uv thing. You clone some non-uv git repo that has no pyproject.toml and you don't know what to install. Maybe has requirements.txt but it's partially wrong.
If I do the simplest possible thing that isn't a single word, by highlighting "opinionated formatter these days (e.g. Black)" and clicking search, I get the right result. I also get the right result for black formatter, and I get the right result if I yolo the entire comment as my search.
VPN is also common in those discussions, it's more setup on the client side but can win on security. Of course there'd be a lot of people in trouble if you couldn't trust tailscale to be better than a beginner selfhoster on security so it's still a good goto option.
I'm keeping an eye on Tenstorrent for this. Pricing seems like its going to end up being in between a super memory dense unified memory platform, and a purpose built GPU.
Definitely on the edge of what would make sense at home, but its interesting.
how exactly did you jump to the conclusion that American ?citizen? taxpayes are propping these two people up financially? They are presumably both paying income tax in the United States as well, probably a lot of it based on his wife's profession.
> You go from formulating unique solutions to flagging things that look wrong and then just picking an alternative LLM generated one.
totally depends on how you use the tools. Plenty of people fall in to that scenario, but plenty of others explicitly tell the LLM tools what and how to build something.
some models do ok with instruction, some don't. You still have to review pretty thoroughly and make corrections or re-prompt.
For the most part I use claude code w/ opus plan mode + sonnet implementation mode, and it does pretty well. I go through the planning process for anything other than the most basic changes.
A good generic terminal UI app for reviewing git diffs, making comments, etc...
Lots of these have started popping up, but almost every single one of them is a TUI interface for github, or gitlab.
What I'm building is for local git by default, but has an extensible plugin system to support integrating with github/gitlab/azure ado/etc... for their PRs and approvals, but forced in to a single consistent UX and workflow.
Its good enough for basic diff reviews that it has become my daily driver for about a month for reviewing my own stuff before I push changes remotely.
I kind of disagree. You are describing a kind person who is extremely valuable, a person who is proficient in SWE but also has domain specific skills in some niche.
That's great, but its nowhere near the norm, and people have been doing generalist software engineering for decades. There has been a sufficient amount of work for a long time to be performed by generalists that it has been a very reasonable career.
IMO AI is the first thing that has ever actually challenged that.
multiple times now I've signed up with a fake name/handle/email/etc..., sometimes from a VPN, and within 10 minutes a friend usually tells me they see me as a recommendation to follow (they can tell, by the handle).
Insta delete, every time.
reply