We may not have AGI yet (“artificial general intelligence”, AI equivalent to a human), but we sure have AGI (“artificial Guardian intelligence”, AI equivalent to The Guardian).

Corollary: since self-driving isn’t a solved problem yet, this proves that cab drivers are already smarter than the Guardian.

You can review PR’s commit by commit, and you can ask people to review PR’s commit by commit. Not a big deal.

Then you lose the ability to merge the portion of work which has been agreed to, until the whole change overall has been agreed to.

Not at all. One of the tricks of using AI is context management and managing the Git history yourself can be a big part of that. If the AI has a stupid idea and implements it, even when you tell it, “that was a stupid idea, don’t do that, change it back”, the history could persist and the stupid idea will poison the context window every time an agent reads the commit history. It’s even worse if you had the stupid idea!

Also, my current workflow actually has hooks to block agents from creating or changing commits. I know at some point this will be a limit to scaling, but I think that will result in me spending more rather than less time in git.

Squashing is fine if you’re just making a mess of temporary commits as you work and you don’t want to keep any of those changes separate in master, but that’s not a useful review workflow. A lot of times I’ve built a feature in a way that decomposed naturally into e.g. two commits: one to do a preparatory refactor (which might have a lot of noisy and repetitive changes, like changing a function signature) and another to actually change the behavior. You want those changes to be separate because it makes the changes easier to review; the reviewer quickly skims the first commit, observes that it’s a mechanical refactor, and the change in behavior has its own, smaller commit without all the noise.

“What if there’s feedback and you need to make changes after the code review?” Then I do the same thing I did before I posted the code review: make separate “fixup” commits and do an interactive rebase to squash them into my commits. (And yes, I do validate that the intermediate commits build cleanly.)

There’s nothing you get from stacked PR’s that you don’t also get from saying “please review my feature branch commit by commit”.

Yes what you’re describing is literally the thing GitHub has built but instead of having to make a bunch of compromises, there is dedicated UI and product metaphor for it.

Some examples of compromises:

You can’t merge partially merge a large “review commit by commit” PR so you are forced to wait until it is all ready to merge.

> You can’t merge partially merge a large “review commit by commit” PR so you are forced to wait until it is all ready to merge.

These are two different use cases. I thought we were talking about the one where a set of changes is more readable commit by commit but you still want to merge the whole set of changes, not the one where the change is too big to review and merge at once so you have to break it up into multiple reviews. The latter use case is more rare—frankly, it’s a bit of a red flag otherwise—and wasn’t difficult anyway.

Microsoft didn’t need to build anything because it was already built into Git. The only problem is, if people knew how to use Git, Microsoft couldn’t lock them into a proprietary version control platform.

No but they might be able to fix authentication problems, which is what this is.

Guess what, they’ll do nothing. If Czech market is small enough for them to fix quotation marks, they’re not fixing Czech keyboard.

OTOH, if an American will whine enough on Internet, they may fix it for him. Maybe some other American should use standard Czech quotes as password to get it fixed also.

Jobs was a perfectionist and a minimalist. Part of minimalism is that sometimes you delete marginal features (arrow keys) that you still end up wanting back.

If you never delete too many features, you aren’t deleting enough features.

You’re right, it’s much easier to replace the entire federal bureaucracy.

You’re confusing a few of the issues here. This isn’t an interstate commerce case, it’s a tax power case, which does reflect on the NFA but not on Wickard v Filburn or civil rights. The important aspects of federal civil rights law aren’t legally justified by the commerce clause either.

Though I would gladly see Wickard v Filburn overturned. Commercial regulations already vary by state, and the US would still be more cohesive than the EU is today, but the amount of water that flows through my showerhead doesn’t have to be a concern of the federal government. In fact, we don’t even need Wickard v Filburn to be a more cohesive federation than Canada, which doesn’t even have free trade between provinces.

There isn’t really a shortage of money for those things, just rampant levels of fraud, corruption, and incompetence in the government to make those things artificially expensive. California spends so much money on high speed rail and gets 0 feet of track because they’re not paying for track; the whole thing is a scam where the politicians give taxpayer money to their political supporters in exchange for political support. Defense isn’t immune to this either; Boeing, which builds a shitty heavy lift rocket out of Space Shuttle spare parts and delivers it late and over budget, pulls the exact same bullshit with their defense contracts, and there’s always some shitty Senator siding with them against the American people whenever anyone gets upset.

Coding is one thing that is genuinely more enjoyable with AI than without it. It’s a different (but overlapping) skill set, but my median AI sessions remind me of the most exhilarating design discussions I’ve had with colleagues, and I get a lot more done more quickly than I used to.

Customer support is kind of something you can use AI for; most companies will foist you off to some system of exchanging written messages, which is annoying, but then you can use an AI to write your side of the conversation. It’s ill-mannered to do this when you’re interacting with actual people, but customer support is another story.

> Look at Suno. Fantastic tool, but where was the capital need to make music generation so cheap that no musician could ever compete with it? Did the world really wake up one day and concluded that, "wait, we're spending too much on musicians"?

People didn’t know what LLMs would be capable of until after they were invented. Cheap music generation turned out to be easy once we had cheap text generation, and cheap text generation turned out to be a tractable problem.