What the fuck is quantum AI?

Codeberg or sourcehut.

Gitlab was always cringe.

Left: imagine having slaves !!

Right: ew, slaves !!

It would be perfect as a CLI and LSP combo.

thought the earth is flat a few thousand earlier

We didn’t. Which is an even better illustration to the point you’re making.

Neovim plugin authors forget one simple rule - plugins are supposed to plug in. Instead they write libraries.

I’ve been forking plugins I’m unwilling to get rid of and rewriting them to not require setup. It eliminates a lot of config complexity.

What worries me is that the same people that contribute to this mess are getting more and more involved with neovim core development. require.enable({ enabled = true}) is a recognizable [anti]pattern.

What the… But heat! Lasers make heat, space is insulating!

Who… why?..

What a life to be literate.

Best part is, my role can’t be eliminated, nor can my responsibilities be fulfilled by AI.

My job though? I’m just waiting for the axe to drop.

Some employees report outright refusing to use AI tools.

So having morals is sabotage now?

It doesn’t, it shifts responsibility at best.

The Deal-Breaker

vim.pack has no event/filetype/command-based lazy loading. None. You either load at startup or you manually call :packadd in your config yourself.

Oh, so it’s sane and doesn’t try to bullshit it’s way out of plugin authors’ incompetence?

I’m sold!

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sexual attractiveness also doesn’t mean sexual drive. One doesn’t need to be gay to understand that a man is sexually attractive in the way they find compelling. A desire to look good is all it takes.

«гр.» is for grams

Senior backend engineering definitely doesn’t see 99% windows adoption rate.

Well, they do it Japanese style - by forcing developers to leave due to burnout.

I’m working with a legacy codebase for the last few months, where a simple PR often ends up crossing a 1000 lines count due to testing and commenting, and I can’t stop apologizing for those.

Yet there are people out there bragging about 10x changesets.

Kids the days… are entirely relatable.

I made my statement as a BDD/TDD practitioner.

The code goal of software engineering is not to deliver said code, but to deliver it in a framework that lets others—and consequently me in a week’s time—to contribute easily. This makes both future improvements and bug fixes easier.

Dumping a ~25000 lines changeset with a git history that’s almost designed to confuse is antithetical to both engineering and open source.

The size of that changeset means that it’s inherently unreviewable.

The commit history is something I’ve seen only in the PRs that even the most dysfunctional companies would demand a rewrite for.

Also, 2-3 weeks review? PostgreSQL support could be added in that time without the need for a damn „vibe check”. Hell, it would probably take less time than that.

Let’s face it the only reason you’re saying “coding is a practical use case” is because you yourself don’t code, and don’t understand it.

Usually only the last statement is true.