Only mostly, and only relatively recently. The first compiler is generally attributed to Grace Hopper in 1952. 2013 is when Debian kicked off their program to do bit-for-bit reproducible builds. Thirteen years later, Nixos can maybe produce bit-for-bit identical builds if you treat her really well. We don't look into the details because it just works and we trust it to work, but because computers are all distributed systems these days, getting a bit-for-bit identical build out of the compiler is actually freaking hard. We just trust them to work well enough (and they do), but they've had three fourths of a century to get there.
I’m not. I’ve been working with C on and off for 30 years. Linux requires GNU extensions beyond standard C. Once you get the basics done, there’s still a lot more work to do. Compiling a trivial program might work. But you’ll hit an edge case or 50 in the millions of lines in Linux.
I also should’ve qualified my message with “in 2 weeks”, or even “in 2 months.” Given more time it’s obviously possible for more people.
As an informal measure of the complexity of the code sure 100k lines are inherently more complex than 10k because there’s just more there to look at. And if you are assuming that 2 projects were made by competent teams, saying that one application is 10k LOC and one is 1 million might be useful as a heuristic for number of man hours spent.
But I can write a 100k LOC compiler where 90k lines are for making error messages look pixel perfect on 10 different operating systems. Or where 90k lines are useless layers upon layers of indirection. That doesn’t mean that someone is willing to pay more for it.
AI frequently does exactly that kind of thing.
So saying my AI made a 100k LOC program that does X, and then comparing the cost to a 100k LOC program written by a human is a nonsense comparison. The only thing that matters is to compare it to how much a company would pay a human to produce a program capable of the same output.
In this case the program is commercially useless. Literally of zero monetary value, so no company would pay any money for it. Therefore there’s nothing to compare it to.
That’s not to say it’s not an interesting and useful experiment. Or that things can’t be different in the future.
Guy uses his project's GitHub issues as personal TODO list, realizes his one line GitHub issues look unprofessional, uses AI to hallucinate them into fake but realistic looking issues, and then complains when he gets AI slop PRs.
An alternative idea: Use a TODO list and stop using GitHub Issues as your personal dumping ground, whether you use AI to pad them or not. If the issue requires discussion or more detail and would warrant a proper issue, then make a proper issue.
People can do whatever they want with their own issue trackers, including making them a todo list. They represent real things he wants to see changed in the software
> In the morning I typically check my work calendar, my personal calendar, the shared family calendar, and the kids' various school calendars. It would be convenient to have these aggregated. (Copying events or sending new events to all of the calendars works well until I forget and one slips through the cracks...)
But... calendar apps already let you aggregate your calendars into a single view. Even if you have them on separate accounts (or some other impediment), you can easily share a read-only version of, say, your work calendar with your personal account so that you can have them combined in the morning.
> you can easily share a read-only version of, say, your work calendar with your personal account so that you can have them combined in the morning.
If only it was that easy! I'm not allowed to share content to or from my work calendar for security reasons. The school and camp calendars are a mix of PDFs and hand-written websites -- a neighbor wrote a scraper to extract the information from a few of them into a caldav at one point but it ended up being even flakier than copying the relevant bits by hand. There's no technical barrier to consolidating my personal calendar with the various family / neighborhood calendars but in practice I have to hide most of the other calendars because the volume of irrelevant events is just too large, so I end up just copying over the relevant events to a personal calendar.
I think this problem is one that AI could actually help with- simply snap a photo of my school calendar and ask the ai to add the important items to my personal calendar.
But I don't need the AI to do this everyday, just when i get a new calendar.
It honestly tempting to point a camera at my workstation so AI can "watch over my shoulder" while I'm working on systems that are pointlessly excessively locked down.
I don't do, but it is tempting, and I bet people will do it.
Too much security makes people seek insecure workarounds...
Or to quote Star Wars, “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers”.
Many years ago I watched someone marched out of the room in handcuffs by military police for plugging a USB thumb drive in the wrong computer.
My current situation isn't anywhere near that strict, and I agree that many security postures are dumb and overbearing, like unnecessarily frequent password rotation. But honestly, preventing employees from sharing company documents with random third parties doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
I agree, but a lot of companies risk exactly that by creating policies that people are likely to have reasons to want to bypass.
E.g. Calendar sharing. It's a paintpoint if you often have irregular working hours and have to match up a personal and work calendar. At least allow sharing busy/not busy... By not doing so, you create an environment where people are tempted to find workarounds that might be much worse.
Part of your security posture needs to be to consider how to prevent friction in areas where reducing it removes incentives for non-compliance.
Yes. But it's no different from the question of how a non-tech person can make sure that whatever their tech person tells them actually makes sense: you hire another tech person to have a look.
reply