virgilp

5 ms·

31.
by virgilp 7mo ago
"Waterfall" got a bad rep because it meant "we stay months in the requirements gathering, then months design phase, then months in development, then months in validation". If you compress "months" to days/
32.
by virgilp 7mo ago
Cool but it is not a framework for working with AI, it is an _opinionated_ framework for building full-stack apps right? As in, I can't use any of it if I'm building, say, a Spark data processing pipeline. Or a ML framework. Or au
33.
by virgilp 8mo ago
No, OP literally claims "you can't spec out something you have no clue how to build"; I claim that on the contrary, you absolutely can - you don't need to know "how to build" but you need to clarify what you wa
34.
by virgilp 8mo ago
Nothing of what you write here matches my experience with AI. Specification is worth writing (and spending a lot more time on than implementation) because it's the part that you can still control, fully read, understand etc. Once it ge
35.
by virgilp 8mo ago
> Nothing persists after the session ends. Does that mean that if I exit claude code and then later resume the session, the database is already lost? When exactly does the session end?
36.
by virgilp 8mo ago
> after my old Volvo dies That's another 20 years mate.
37.
by virgilp 8mo ago
It's relative, not absolute. It's definitely more dangerous to not know how to make your own food than to know something about it - you _need_ food, so lacking that skill is more dangerous than having it. That was my point, really
38.
by virgilp 8mo ago
That's not how things work in practice. I think the concern is not that "people don't know how everything works" - people never needed to know how to "make their own food" by understanding all the cellular mech
39.
by virgilp 8mo ago
I'm wondering about that. I think with the advent of AI, we might see a new kind of successful software company - one that doesn't sell a single solution to many customers, but instead has the building blocks, prompts (agents skil
40.
by virgilp 9mo ago
This is an interesting thing that I'm contemplating. I also do believe that (perhaps with very few exceptions) there are no "10x engineers" by themselves, but engineers that thrive 10x more in a context or another (like, I&#x
41.
by virgilp 10mo ago
Definitely not a visionary. This is how you do it in 2025: https://imgur.com/rWiP90P
42.
by virgilp 10mo ago
Yeah but you can also have a disaster strike in that place (say, a nuclear accident) that will obliterate your real-estate value. Or general society changes that will make a city much less desirable (see the "rust belt"). Of cours
43.
by virgilp 11mo ago
This is some data about US: https://today.yougov.com/ratings/entertainment/fame/people/a... Zuckerberg is 49, Sheeran is 169 (Taylor Swift is on 4; Bieber, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé are also more famous than
44.
by virgilp 11mo ago
a million ways, but e.g: once in a while, add a "challenge" header; the next request should contain a "challenge-reply" header for said challenge. If you're just reusing the access token, you won't get it right
45.
by virgilp 11mo ago
Because of many reasons. It's not practical to have a Starlink antenna with you everywhere. And then yes, cost is a significant factor too - even in the dialup era satellite internet connection was a thing that existed "everywhere
46.
by virgilp 1y ago
I never claimed "hardest". And yes, block3 being as of right now still unproven is another reason to say "not almost done with the hard parts yet".
47.
by virgilp 1y ago
I wouldn't say "almost done" - orbital refueling is likely one of the hard parts, and it wasn't attempted yet.
48.
by virgilp 1y ago
No, they are quite identical. Both cases logically lead to "now everything has the same priority". There's nothing about generalism in there.
49.
by virgilp 1y ago
Add "to most developers" for context and you'll probably get exactly what original claim meant. It's not a non-statement. Rich Hickey explains it well, readability is not about the subjective factors, it's mostly ab
50.
by virgilp 1y ago
It does fall back to "core values" though - kinda' like with math & axioms. The "why" chain of questions will inevitably lead to something like "because there's inherent value in human life", and
51.
by virgilp 1y ago
How can you know? One could argue that the entire phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is "people (internally) recognize the contradiction and then perform it"
52.
by virgilp 1y ago
I tried this! Made a list of long-term (10y I think) predictions. Posted it on social media so that I can come back to it later, and also so that it's public & keeps me honest. And by social media, I mean "Google Circles&quot
53.
by virgilp 1y ago
> Don’t bother predicting which future we'll get. Build capabilities that thrive in either scenario. I feel this is a bit like the "don't be poor" advice (I'm being a little mean here maybe, but not too much). Su
54.
by virgilp 1y ago
You can question the profits, but revenue is already there.
55.
by virgilp 1y ago
> They are simple statistical predictors, now universal anwsering machines. I see this a lot. I kinda' doubt the "simple" part, but even beyond that, is there any evidence that statistical predictor can't be a univers
56.
by virgilp 1y ago
I feel like complaining about things being "undemocratic" is like complaining about a software system's architecture that "it's not microservices". Not everything needs to be - and some things would be actively
57.
by virgilp 1y ago
I was not being clear - I was just trying to say that taking opaque $hit decisions with lots of inverted umbrellas around you is somewhat inevitable and not all fun, either; sure, it's lucrative, so that helps - but otherwise it's
58.
by virgilp 1y ago
> I guess the solution is to just join executive leadership ha. It's really... not? I guess, it probably depends on the person too. But at some level, you have both a lot of power to influence things accidentally in a bad way if you
59.
by virgilp 1y ago
> Since when do OOP languages have to be single paradigm? What I really meant to say with that was that it's lisp at its core -i.e. if one wants to place it squarely in one single paradigm, imo that one should be "Functional&qu
60.
by virgilp 1y ago
There are a handful of (somewhat exotic) languages that support multiple dispatch - pretty much, all those listed by you. None of the mainstream ones (C++, Java, C# etc) do. (also Common Lisp is hardly a poster child of OOP, at best you ca

More ›