Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | modarts's commentslogin

It still amuses me how literally people took Kapathy's famous tweet around vibe coding https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

If people were to actually read beyond the first sentence, it would become clear very quickly that this was meant to be tongue in cheek.


People took it seriously because that's exactly how a lot of LLM users think and exactly what they want 'coding' to be. Honestly I'm not even certain it is satire.


Because most people have the context-window of 10 tokens, they do not read further than the first sentence (or two).


I don't think it's tongue-in-cheek at all. It refers to a specific type of LLM coding, where you literally don't care about how bad the code is and just code stuff and hope it works. That's how I use the term, and that's why I use it rarely.


Who's "we"?

Software engineers? The ones who proudly refuse to unionize?


I'm a software engineer and you don't speak for me.

There are plenty of software engineers who would unionize, given the chance. It's not easy to do. And sure, with enough effort we could, but that's a pretty big difference from "refusing to".


> It's not easy to do.

Because software engineers don't want to. It is very easy to unionize if a majority wants to.


> I'm a software engineer and you don't speak for me.

But that's the whole point of unionizing: have somebody speak for you. /s


"We" is workers and laborers of any sort, really.

Software engineers and other white collar professionals want to believe we have more in common with our CEO than we do with a plumber because we work in offices, but I'd bet most of the executive class, ownership class, boards of directors and such see us the same as plumbers: we're a necessary expense


I'm a unionised engineer, albeit in Australia where unionising is simply a case of finding a union and joining it.



Yep. I first read that when I was twelve. I wouldnt say I understood much back then, or even now after a number of re-readings. But its an amazing book. "Sprawling" is one word that I would use to describe it.



A hiring freeze is typically a freeze on new job reqs (candidates already interviewing wouldn't be exposed to this)


In this instance, Google is freezing people below the Staff-Eng level who have already done their onsites.


This is frankly, useless. What is the problem being solved here?


This is an unacceptably bad launch post.


Looks like someone took this tweet literally https://twitter.com/davecheney/status/1296033304756404225


> Many of the benefits and concerns are tackled in their respective chapters. Even so, I want to emphasize that Server-side tagging has the potential to overturn the current dynamic of data collection and governance for an organization. You own and have full control over the server-side environment. You have access to tools and methods to thoroughly vet and validate the traffic between network sources and your advertising and analytics endpoints.

Not quite sure what's so revolutionary about this -- isn't this what Segment and other similar products have been offering for the better part of a decade?


Not exactly. Although Segment has some backend integrations, most tags still need to be on the client side. Each tag typically tracks its own cookies and uses third-party cookies to learn more about each user. However, as those cookies are starting to go away and privacy is starting to increase, we may see a big shift.

I'm hopeful something like this will take off. I'm tired of adding so many slow third-party tags.


By declaring dependencies in code (usually with annotations or decorators)


What do you do when you want to choose the implementation for dependencies and optionally configure them at runtime?

I think that's why most of the popular dependency injection frameworks I see support configuration through XML or JSON.


Firstly, you barely ever do.

Secondly, unless you're selling compiled software for others to configure, there really is no difference between config in config files and config in code, except that the former does not let you build such meaningful and useful abstractions. You're presumably delivering it all into production via CI/CD anyway, so what difference editing a config file vs. some actual source code, besides the lack of real type safety and IDE assistance?

Pulumi have figured this out.

(And I suspect that if your end users need to configure your software's use of Spring's Dependency Injection in XML config then you are probably doing it wrong.)


What exactly has Pulumi figured out?

FWIU, their path is not the right one for DevOps.

Dhall and Cue have the correct starting philosophy, i.e Turing incomplete


Then you also do that in code? I don't see how that would differ. If your container doesn't support that, you can always just make a Factory for it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: