...regular coding, again. We've been doing this for decades now and this LLM bullshit is wholely unnecessary and extremely detrimental.

The AI bubble will pop. Shit will get even more expensive or nonexistent (as these companies go bust, because they are ludicrously unprofitable), because the endless supply of speculative and circular investments will dry up, much like the dotcom crash.

It's such an incredibly stupid thing to not only bet on, but to become dependent on to function. Absolute lunacy.

I got this too, but what was really odd was that the message was rendered differently in the Connect app. Really wondering how that's possible to do.

Nope, we call it master. The hand-wringing over the name was and still is absolutely asinine.

Absolutely insane. More than my mortgage. Really curious how much this person makes. Is it 50% of their net income? 70%? The sheer logicistics seem insane unless you're making a shitload of money (over 200k).

You mispronounced fascist. That's what all cybertruck owners are.

50 strollers is "you deeply need serious medical attention" territory. Sorry you had to go through that.

You likely aren't familiar with modern Haskell, tbh. Things have changed a lot in the last handful of years. If you give me an example, I can show you how it can be done pretty reasonably (I write Haskell professionally, fwiw).

I've done that. It sucks.

They have different sets of tradeoffs and prioritize different things. Nevertheless, you can express typeclasses with the module system just as you can express the module system with typeclasses (using modern Haskell language extensions to the typeclass system). One is not more expressive than the other. You give me any usage of the module system, and I can show you how it can be done with typeclasses.

That, or Haskell's typeclasses (which serve much of the same need). Without one or the other you lose out on a lot of expressive power.

Every time at work "I asked Gemini and here's what it said..." No. Shut the fuck up.

The funny thing is, LLMs can be useful for exactly one thing: certain kinds of linguistic tasks. For example, if you were inventing a fictional language, it's probably pretty good for that.

But using it as a general-purpose problem solving tool is beyond stupid.