> I declined to work on it, as I was not sure if it's even possible or if it would be better to rewrite the entire thing from scratch with better prompts.

This is a bit of an unknown right now. If you get a working prototype, but need to productionize it, make sure it can scale, and get it looked over with a security mineset, how long it might take isn't clear, so finding someone who will do that is hard.

> Late in the night most problems were fixed and I wrote a script that found everyone whose payment got stuck. I sent them money back (+ extra $1 as a ‘thank you for your patience’ note), and let them know via DMs.

(emphasis added)

Not sure if it was actually written by hand or AI was glossed over, but as soon as giving away money was on the table, the author seems to have ditched AI.

Isn't the AI sales pitch that you can do both?

> Why pay a subscription for a product that I can get something Claude to build it for me.

We've already seen this with OSS. Even with free software, support, self-hosting, and quirky behavior have proven to be enough to keep most people and business away.

Thing is, AI will also be able to provide substantial support for software it writes. And it will make self-hosting a lot less painful, too. Quirky behavior will still happen, but eh, Excel imports numbers as dates. You can't buy your way out of quirky behavior for all the money in the world.

> pom.xml loading two versions of the same library

Just checking that you're using maven-enforcer-plugin

We're getting some moderately expensive and painful lessons about how hard it would be to deglobalize.

CPI is personal (renting vs home ownership), very hard to have a good definition for (expenses tracked and weights), and more useful over short windows because the standard of living changes.

I compared the mic quality of Airpods Pro 2, Airpods 4 ANC (similar), and freebie Apple 3.5mm wired earbuds. The earbuds won. My limited research suggested either 1) compression and transmission take a lot of power, so the Airpods don't do as good of a job as something with a bigger battery can afford to, 2) the mic position is worse, or 3) Bluetooth doesn't have enough bi-directional bandwidth for two good signals.

I tested this and based on my testing it’s (3). The AirPods microphone actually gets (slightly) better in quality if you don’t play something through the speakers while using it. Even then the 3.5mm ones were better tho

4) The Bluetooth standard is just kinda bad. Technically there should be enough bandwidth for better quality audio, but the existing profiles like headset mode drop audio quality down to 8-16 kHz sampling rate in mono, not just for mic but for audio you're listening to as well. It's a huge flaw and it's been bad for decades with seemingly no improvement at all (at least certainly not in a way that could be widespread and commonly used).

It's so bad you'd almost wish for a brand new wireless connectivity or wireless audio standard, or even resort to some proprietary 2.4 GHz nonsense, because it's genuinely so horrid. You could have the best most expensive headphones in the world, but because of Bluetooth and its ancient profiles and mic support it's gonna have baseline absolute garbage mic quality no matter what.

I tested with a Macbook, so I'm a little surprised Apple didn't do proprietary magic to fix it.

I was doing something involving API keys and I realized Junie (backed by Sonnet) likes too write helper scripts to try things. And who knows where those scripts look or if they honor .aiignore. Agentic development is a real test of internal access control.

Your first mistake is thinning that such childish control mechanisms are helping you.

Gondolin go hard or go home

> The programmer needs to understand this implementation detail instead of pretending that async functions work the same way as sync functions.

Async is telling the OS "I'll do it myself" to threading and context switches.

I agree that from the perspective of the implementation of async code, it is in many ways an application doing its own threading and context switching. However, your Parent comment is written from the perspective of the dev writing and reasoning about the code. In that case, from the devs perspective, async is there to make concurrent code ‘look like’ (since it certainly is not actually) sequential code.

I think this type of confusion (or more likely people talking past one another in most cases) is a fairly common problem in discussing programming languages and specific implementations of concepts in a language. In this case the perceived purpose of an abstraction based on a particular “view point”, leads to awkward discussions about those abstractions, their usefulness, and their semantics. I don’t know if there is way to fix these sorts of things (even when someone is just reading a comment thread), but maybe pointing it out can serve to highlight when it happens.