why even pay for that, just use a free model from Opencode, most of them are pretty good for simple tasks. I haven't paid a cent in vibe coding for ages.
Small summary: external identifiers are hard to change, so projects will evolve such that they are not accurately descriptive after time.
(Less discussed there, but: In a complex or decentralized ecosystem, it's also the case that you come across many "X Manager"/"X Service"/"X State Manager"/"X Workflow Service" simultaneously, and then have to rely on a lot of thick context to know what the distinctions are)
I’ve been told multiple times in multiple jobs that I’m good at naming things, and I love whimsical names. A couple rules I’ve internalized are:
- if it’s hard to name, that’s a good sign that you haven’t clearly delineated use case or set of responsibilities for the thing
- best case for a name is that it’s weird and whimsical on first encounter. Then when somebody tells you the meaning/backstory for the name it reveals some deeper meaning/history that makes it really memorable and cements it in your mind
- the single best tech naming thing I’ve encountered (I didn’t come up with it) was the A/B testing team at Spotify naming themselves “ABBA”
God this article is 10000% better than the posted one. This is great:
> Names should not describe what you currently think the thing you’re naming is for. Imagine naming your newborn child "Doctor", or "SupportsMeInMyOldAge". Poor kid.
I totally agree with this, and will add that another benefit of whimsical names is discoverability. If your project is named plugin-update-checker and I want to find documentation on it, it's likely going to be buried in a bunch of other irrelevant search results about plugin update checkers in general. If it was called SocketToMe instead, I'm going to find much better search results.
I suppose it depends on your goals, but that scope restraint can be a good thing.
Do one thing, do it well, and while you're at it call yourself by the thing you do so you remember that's what you ought to be doing. A bit wordy for unix but you get the idea.
1 week is fascinating. Was it like – the missing piece was modern version control/CD? What kind of testing would need that? (We have configs at work where the system interactions are so unknowable and the financial implications of reduced efficiency so profound that we have to run multi-week A/B tests to change values) Was it some kind of pathological documentation culture?
AFAIR, there were two aspects to testing. The code change itself obviously only took tens of minutes, if that. First round of testing was just the build test, and that was fully automated but I think there were independent builds for multiple different hardware variations and so the total time for that was several days. Then there was actual use-case testing ... I wasn't involved in that at all, but was told it would also take several days of actual testing by a QA team.
I seem to recall someone signing a name to the idea that the event was so bad because the smart engineers had left AWS, so my own expectations about the amount of bollocks I'm going to read about it have risen
I think there’s a meaningful difference between “a ton of organizational knowledge has departed over the past few years” and “they let people go last week so now their site fell over.”
And I object strongly to the mischaracterization of my point as “the smart engineers left.” It’s unfair to the incredibly talented folks that work at AWS to cast the tenured folks as being any more or less skilled—it’s just that they definitively have more experience with the environment.
If you're in the mood to object to mischaracterization, maybe the best thing would have been to object to your piece being published with a headline including the phrase "brain drain" and a subheadline involving the phrase "When your best engineers log off for good". Whatever you may have meant I do not have a publicly appropriate adjective for how this from somebody prominent felt to see while eating lunch with the other "incredibly talented folks" in the light haze of foundational services event-recovery sleep deprivation.
Right now, about 6% of my power comes from natural gas. That's the only fossil fuel power I'm currently using. Everything else is solar/hydro/wind. Not sure why nuclear isn't listed, I thought we had an active plant here. But you get the picture.
For my grid, new solar or wind is simply not needed so why would we be anywhere near the top of installation? Batteries is what we actually need.
There is a point where it's a bad idea to install more renewables.
Having a system as described where parents with evidence of abuse can't protect their kids from abusers seems absolutely unacceptable. Patching over that with the current unfair assumptions about men vs. women as suitable parents isn't better!
Well, the author of the article found several people sharing experiences that they heard from other people that seem to give credence to that view.
Hard to know at this point if the problem is with specific judges, with the way the law is written, or if the presentation of these experiences are made to seem more numerous by the way the article presents the story. It also didn't cover instances of abuse coming from mothers, so there's at least a little bias in the story.
Feminist activists funded my mother's legal bills to win custody of me and my 4 siblings when she and my father divorced. My mother was a bipolar drug addict and the activists ignored this, and within a year social services gave us back to my father after neighbors called the police when my older sisters asked them for food. The police found me and my twin brother inside, abandoned in a crib, my mother nowhere to be found.
We suffered a year of neglect and abuse because of biased custody laws pushed by feminist activists, who project the traits of the worst men onto all of men, and pretend all women are angelic. I deeply resent it, and the "critics" in this article are doing the same thing.
Not entirely true. They actually removed family violence as a direct factor and instead now look at the safety of all parties and best interests of children as the primary factors. We are yet to see how it plays out. But anecdotal data from people I know in the family court space suggests some judges are using the change to effect better and safer parenting arrangements and some are using it as a way to dismiss entering complaints of family into the record at all (even ones verified by police).
As i recall, the mandatory shared parenting was a stupid & anachronistic captains call from little johnny, via toxic father lobby groups. It put more levers for coercive control at the hands of the few men who perpetrate family violence and just made everything more difficult for everyone else. Remember, something like 80-90% of parenting cases which enter the family court system are settled out of court. But of the ones who do go through the courts, family violence is a factor in something like 70% of those cases.[0]
I have no doubt that the increase in family violence, both incidence and intensity, in the over the past 20 years is directly linked to this policy.
[0] it is hard to get current stats on this figure, they are now lumping fv in with all safety factors, including drug use and criminal activity.
This is a great example of a piece with enough meaningful and useful content in it that it's very clear the author had something of value to deliver, and I'm grateful for that... but enough repetitive LLM-output that I'm very annoyed by the end.
Actually, let me be specific: everything from "The Rise of Retrieval-Augmented Generation" up to "The Fundamental Limitations of RAG for Complex Documents" is good and fine as given, then from "The Emergence of Agentic Search - A New Paradigm" to "The Claude Code Insight: Why Context Changes Everything" (okay, so the tone of these generated headings is cringey but not entirely beyond the pale) is also workable. Everything else should have been cut. The last four paragraphs are embarrassing and I really want to caution non-native English speakers: you may not intuitively pick up on the associations that your reader has built with this loudly LLM prose style, but they're closer to quotidian versions of the [NYT] delusion reporting than you likely mean to associate with your ideas.
reply