That's not an elephant in the room.. it's just proof of how insanely useful the tool is and the reality that so much more hardware is needed. Thus people saying "why are these companies building insanely large data centers" ... this is why!
The problem is that vibe-coding, when it fails (i.e. it's non-useful, at least for a bit), is usually solved by more vibes. Try again and hope it works. Ask it to refactor and hope the cleaner code helps it along. If you're willing to think about the code yourself you'll likely ask it questions about the codebase. High vibe-code usage is both a metric that it is working and that it's failing.
I think it is telling that this audience down votes this. It's kind of obvious that the thing is being used a lot. Doesn't mean it works as well as advertised. Doesn't mean the business model they have works. Just means there is a lot of demand. You can't ignore that.
I have no particular insight into the Anthropic backend, but it's possible in general for systems to have architectural issues which cannot be mitigated by just adding more hardware.
The proof is already there. It's concrete. I've seen it directly the last few months of using claude code. It closed the loop. It's insanely beneficial when used properly- that is a pure fact. You act like it's an opinion.
Except the definitions of poverty are defined to make it seems like it's not poverty. When you have a massive amount of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck, is one small medical emergency away from bankruptcy / can't pay their rent/mortgage. Will lose their job because of little to no protections. Very little social safety nets... most people are a lot closer to 'poverty' than looking at simple statistics.
The definitions of poverty are used to measure relative wealth, not whether someone lives paycheck to paycheck. As income increases, paycheck to paycheck reports decrease, but at a certain point it then increases again. Living paycheck to paycheck is a poor measure, because you can buy a house that’s too expensive for your income, or a car, eat out too much, or make a variety of other poor life choices. That’s why the poverty index is good at measuring relative decreases in poverty because it ignores poor life choices.
Living paycheck to paycheck is usually a choice: people earn a lot of money and spend it immediately. The fact that this leaves them vulnerable to misfortune doesn't mean they're poor.
While this can be true, this absolutely is not true for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck people. You truly need to get your head out of your ass if you honestly believe this is what is causing people to be poor.
With the insane rates of consumtion, home ownership and car ownership, it simply is a fact. Tons of people live paycheck to paycheck and call themsevles poor, when they have an 80k truck with monthly payment as high as some peoples rent. And often credit card debt with monthly payments as well.
Yes, sometimes this is medical debt or other unavoidable things. But its also true that the consumtion rate is incredibly high and the savings rate is incredibly low, with US credit card industry making it easy to create huge debts.
So its simply a fact that a huge amount of people live in self imposed risky situations. Instead of an emergency fund, they think they can just open a new credit card.
So its of course not what is causing people to be poor, but what is does is that it makes many, many more people 'living on the edge' then there should be based on their actual incomes.
The poverty rate in the US is ~10% and the percentage of workers who live paycheck-to-paycheck is ~35%. So it is true for the majority of people living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Do you know any of those people? Yes it’s almost entirely a choice. Typically a combination of poor life choices in tandem with poor financial choices.
You couldn’t be more wrong about who I am. My relatives and friends are some who have made those poor choices, and neither them nor I live in a major city. The poor in America are in two major camps: inner city and rural America. Both have different reasons for economic poverty and both stem from poor choices.
Give me a break. Most people don't have any real benefits. Healthcare costs are insane. Daycare costs are insane. Rent is insane. Car costs are insane. Insurance is insane. Grocery costs are insane. Higher education costs are insane.
You sound like you are single no kids and on here with a cushy tech job and be like "those poor people just don't know how to manage their money!"
Grocery costs are not actually that insane. Plenty of people have demonstrated that you can live a healthy diet for a 300$ a month, with some people doing it for much less.
Car costs don't have to be insane. If you are smart about buying a small second hand car. Its just a reality that almost all american insanely overspend on their cars. And even reasonably poor people refuse to use buses or public transport even in places where it is possible.
> Healthcare costs are insane. Daycare costs are insane.
A huge number of people who are both healthy and don't have kids, or don't use daycare also live paycheck to paycheck.
> "those poor people just don't know how to manage their money!"
Its simply a well document fact that people insane overspend on consumtion. There is a reason the term 'house poor' exists. US culture tells everybody you need buy a house or you are failure, and that traps a lot of people. Same for cars, the overspend on cars is insane, the amount of 'poor' people that drive F-150 is off the charts, when you could get a second hand Honda Civic for 1/3 cost.
There are 1 million+ large F-150 like trucks sold in a year in the US. And we know for a fact that many of those are sold to people who will end up having payments mich higher then the recommended monthly acccount. And we know for a fact, that most people don't need these trucks.
We also know that people who have a pattern living paycheck to paycheck very often continue to do so, even as their income increases. Partly because they life-style inflated helped by the fact that as your income grows, your ability to add debt increases as well and many people see this as an oppertunity, rather then a trap.
Changing those things doesn't turn you from poor to rich, but it would mean that instead of living on the edge paycheck to paycheck with constant use of credit cards, instead you could have no credit card, an emergency fund and a savings rate of a modest 5%. There are plenty of people you can find who do this, who are worse off in terms of income then people who live paycheck to paycheck.
Its a fair argument to make that the US make this to hard, specially for people with kids or people who are sick, but those don't account for 30%+ of the population. But to ignore all individual choice is equally silly and infantilizing. People prefering F-150 over retirment savings is just a fact of life, and its not elitist to point it out.
I have been building a game via a separate game logic library and Unity (which includes that independent library).. let's just say that over the last couple weeks I have 100% lost the need to do the coding myself. I keep iterating and have it improve and there are hundreds of unit tests.. I have a Unity MCP and it does 95% of the Unity work for me. Of course the real game will need custom designing and all that; but in terms of getting a complete prototype setup.... I am literally no longer the coder. I just did in a week what it would have taken me months and months and months to do. Granted Unity is still somewhat new to, but still.. even if you are an expert- it can immediately look at all your game objects and detect issues etc.
So yeah for some things we are already at the point of "I am not longer the coder, I am the architect".. and it's scary.
100% same experience with Claude and Unreal Engine 5 over here. And as the game moves from "less scaffolding" towards "more code", Claude actually is getting better at one-shotting things than it ever was - probably due to there being a lot more examples in the codebase of how to handle things under different scenarious (world compositing, multiplayer etc etc).
Very true.. also I would say even what I get out of claude code is absolutely phenomenal right now.. but sometimes it does take minutes. I just had it take 15 minutes to do something. But what if you had access to the hardware to run it basically instantly?
Just think how these big companies will use that kind of power for themselves to get even more extreme uses out of it.
They're for those within the population that are willing to submit themselves to the whim of the state and whose prosperity in some way directly benefits the oligarchs that run the state.
Certainly, as just a few examples, they are not for the well-being of the Uyghar population or pro-democracy activists or journalists investigating human rights violation or supporters of Tibetan independence.
Without agreeing (or disagreeing) with their larger point, dynamic types become more of liability as a project gets larger
Like "schemaless" database applications, there's always types/schema somewhere: the choice is if they'll be explicitly defined at the place of construction, or implicitly spread out across all the places data happens to flow in your application. And the more places there are, the more spread out they'll be.
Static typing is also really nice for game dev since proper unit tests are harder (but not impossible) compared to your average CRUD app.
The other side of the argument is that dynamic typing is great for prototyping and can allow for more compact code.
The discussion is exhausting because many people don't understand the difference between weak typing and dynamic typing. You basically never want weak typing but dynamic typing has legit uses. Yes JS is both weakly and dynamically typed and that sucks but Common Lisp shows you can have very strong typing and dynamic types.
Lots of very complex software has been writing in dynamically typed languages. The whole Erlang/Elixir world is dynamically typed though Elixir is getting gradual typing.
There is a good reason gradual typing is getting popular, you get the best of both world. You can prototype quickly and then add types and make everything more solid later.
(Which also why you want to always use a statically typed language in the corporate world because there is never a "later" and the bigger the team the more important it is to have the lang enforcing discipline. But not every programming is corporate.)
People that are dogmatic about static typing show their immaturity. The older I get the more I realize that there is no right or wrong way to program, everything it tradeoffs and "it depends".
> there's always types/schema somewhere: the choice is if they'll be explicitly defined at the place of construction, or implicitly spread out across all the places data happens to flow in your application.
> And the more places there are, the more spread out they'll be.
You can still have schema validation at the borders of the application(data in/out) without static typing.
I think there are many other factors that come into play when it comes to maintaniblity of large projects. I'd easily choose to maintain a large Elixir or Common Lisp codebase over a Java one, assuming they were all using the Best Practices™ of their respective languages.
There is research out there, and there is absolutely zero evidence that static typing catches more bugs than dynamic types. My experience is that immutability, functional programming, simplicity and testing pays a MUCH bigger role in maintainability than static typing.
Dynamic typing has trade-offs, and so does static typing, HUGE trade-offs by the way. But for some reason, no one seems to mention them... ever.
Silly me for falling for the bait after two one-word replies in a row.
If I need to specify this is about data flow inside your application when we're talking about typing, I don't want think we're having the same conversation.
Hopefully someone else will want to mud wrestle on this.
It's probably more "active" sitting. If you are a gamer (especially computer gamer), you are generally not just sitting back "relaxing". Your body is more engaged and you are constantly moving your body in some way.
Sitting and watching tv you can literally be completely still for long periods of time.
Consider StarCraft: Brood War, a legendary real-time strategy game. To be played well, it requires between 200-400 actions per minute (APM), with some players going even beyond 500 APM. Some games last for more than an hour. Players use both the mouse and the keyboard. There's always more to do than you can realistically do. You are always putting out fires, managing your economy, producing units, securing income, carrying multiple attacks at once, fighting tactical battles, and executing strategic goals. Yeah I'd call that a pretty active sitting :)
This is certainly true in the beginning of a game. Players claim to do this to warm up. However, in a busy confrontation there is no reason to spam any actions that are not directly contributing towards your endeavor.
If you spam useless actions during a fight, your opponent who does not will best you.
The game's been played competitively for more than 25 years now, people still earn their living plying StarCraft. You wont find a single one of them with APM below 200. Having their livelihoods and legacies depending on this, do you think they'd be repeatedly doing something useless instead of optimizing?
Anyways, I think you are missing the point that this thread is about active sitting. I imagine there isn't much difference to the meaning behind movement: movement is movement, meaningful or not.
Depends on the game. I'd say I have two modes of sitting when programming, one is passive and my muscles ache. Another is active, when I try to use belly muscles (abs?) to keep my posture etc but... When I fall deeply into thinking I will eventually release muscles and feel worse later.
I wonder if there could be an application that would encourage active sitting
This is what I was thinking about too. I thought that "Active" sitting was going to be something about making sure you're not slouching, but rather adjusting yourself every so often to make sure you're sitting up straight instead of slouching off the chair.
They mention reading as an example of active sitting despite the fact that it requires no more motion than changing the channel (or whatever the modern day equivalent is).
I am thinking about stance while sitting lately. I am breathing and speaking more from my belly and that starts with posture which is neither slouched forward or back.
Me too and it's something I've become more aware as I got older. In short the lesson I learned is be well stacked and relaxed at the same time with the gaze forward. Also be able to freely move around around a fixed point if needed (the sit bones connecting to a sturdy surface of a chair). I find that swivel chairs or too soft of a chair could mess up stability/proprioception. A fixed/rigid chair at the right height helps me plant my feet better into the ground, forming some a sort of a tripod for better stability. Also an eye level monitor and a keyboard in reach without having to stretch out the arms helps keep a better posture. Another thing I practice is not leaning on the backrest too much. I noticed my kid shifting to bad postures when doing homework. Just gently telling him about it from time to time and making him be aware of his improved and what a correct posture should be seems to have improved his habits.
Literally the last thing on the internet you can complain about is Steam. PC gaming would be the biggest cluster fuck in the world- if not fairly dead / super niche.
You would need to install 12 front-ends like Steam that would be hot trash and have a handful of games and be the most miserable shit ever. You wouldn't have sales, reasonable game prices, or family library sharing (this would be absurd to any other company).
Steam is a prime example of when a monopoly ends up to be the best for the consumer.
Well, you don't "stop using Steam" unless you don't care about playing most games released in the last 10-15 years. But the premise is solid, given that GOG has no DRM. Steam did get DRM "right" though.
My problem with Steam are the casino tactics Valve inject into their own games and the platform. That is an entire gaming industry problem however. At least Valve do some good things with the dirty money.
reply