In my opinion, there's a lot of unnecessary criticism here. The entire AI field is in a discovery phase, with new ideas, approaches, and methods emerging at many levels, including models and APIs.
Right now, we don't even have a single standardized API for model responses (OpenAI's Chat Completions API is the de facto standard, but it's not formally standardized, lacks reasoning responses, and caching remains unclear, etc.).
So some ideas from projects like this could stick and contribute something new.
Readit Newskmac_ commented on Universal Tool Calling Protocol (UTCP) github.com/universal-tool... · Posted by u/edweis
kmac_ commented on ClickHouse vs PostgreSQL UPDATE performance comparison clickhouse.com/blog/updat... · Posted by u/truth_seeker
I only use CH for work so I'll read about this more on Monday but I shudder to think of the caveats. We have used cancelling rows and now the one of the merge engines that just needs a version (higher cancels out lower). No database has ever driven me more mad than Clickhouse. If your workload is append-only/insert-only then congrats, it's amazing, you'll have a great time. If you need to update data... Well, strap in.
As long as you can get away with Postgres, stay with Postgres. I'm sure this update here is a step forward just like version-merging is much better than cancelling rows but it's always got a ton of downsides.
Unrelated to updating data, the CH defaults drive me insane, the null join behavior alone made me reconsider trying to rip CH out of our infrastructure (after wasting too long trying to figure out why my query "wasn't working").
Lastly I'll say, if CH does what you need and you are comfortable learning all the ends and outs, then it can do some really cool things. But it's important to remember it's NOT a normal RDMS nor can you use it like one. I almost wish they didn't use SQL as the query language, then people would think about it differently, myself included.
I can recommend Vertica: SQL, columnar storage, S3 backed, great extensibility, I could keep going. After several years of working with it, I can say it's my favorite OLAP DB that can be as fast as a transactional DB when handled correctly.
kmac_ commented on Streaming services are driving viewers back to piracy theguardian.com/film/2025... · Posted by u/nemoniac
To really sum it all up in one place, check out the absurdity of the official guide on where to watch the Pokemon cartoon: https://www.pokemon.com/us/animation/where-to-watch-pokemon-...
And that doesn't even actually list the movies, which are even more fragmented.
Well, "Gotta Subscribe 'Em All!"
kmac_ commented on Emailing a one-time code is worse than passwords blog.danielh.cc/blog/pass... · Posted by u/max__dev
That is unfortunate, but that sounds more like a chrome problem than a passkey problem. You would have the same issue if chrome saved your password.
Passkey is a great example of how five kitchen chefs can't make scrambled eggs. Horrible user experience, terrible marketing, no mental model like "your phone is THE key," no tangible or even symbolic presentation of the key.
New vibe coding definition just dropped! "Vibe-Coding is a dialogue-based coding process between a human and an AI where the human guides and the AI implements."
Reminds me of Steve Yegge's short-lived CHOP - Chat Oriented Programming: https://sourcegraph.com/blog/chat-oriented-programming-in-ac...
I remain a Karpathy originalist: I still define vibe coding as where you don't care about the code being produced at all. The moment you start reviewing the code you're not vibe coding any more, by the definition I like.
Nah, we need defined levels like for autonomous driving. Level 5 is live deployment of a change where a business need was discovered by AI, the change specified and planned by AI, implemented by AI, and reviewed by AI. Vibe coding (without reading) would be even lower, as a human is in the loop.
kmac_ commented on Vibe coding is the fast fashion industry of software engineering pdelboca.me/writings/2025... · Posted by u/pdelboca
It was, but annoyingly a lot of people now use "vibe coding" to mean any form of AI-assisted development.
It's got to the point where if someone talks about "vibe coding" you have to confirm with them which definition they are using, because otherwise you risk people talking right past each other because they're not actually talking about the same thing.
Yes, the term isn't universally defined yet. Also, the number of available tools doesn't help here (e.g., my workflow in Cursor and CC differ). My "vibe coding" is probably different than blog post authors' "vibe coding." At my work, we have "AI in dev" meetings to discuss the topic, the variety of opinions resembles comments here, and we try to boil down where the issue is.
kmac_ commented on Vibe coding is the fast fashion industry of software engineering pdelboca.me/writings/2025... · Posted by u/pdelboca
Vibe coding is not a 0/1 skill. LLMs generate code as the prompt says, so when you ask what you want, you get it. If you want a specific pattern or architecture, explicitly ask for that. It works really well when you (not the LLM) drive the development.
kmac_ commented on EU Commission finds Temu in breach of online platform rules euronews.com/next/2025/07... · Posted by u/saubeidl
It’s all great to buy cheap stuff until you notice that those stickers are poisonous, your hand soap causes cancer and the Wi-Fi broke down because cheap uncertified electronics are causing interference all over your building.
As someone living in the EU, I am happy that we have product safety regulations which are halfway reasonable. But as someone building hardware in the EU, I sure sometimes hope that I would be allowed to just skip all the environmental, safety, tax, and EMI rules. But that’s the price we have to pay so that we don’t accidentally get poisoned due to other people’s greed.
And that’s why, even though it negatively affects my business, I fully support those EU regulations.
Thank you for your comment. People would be shocked at how many hazards they avoid because of those regulations. I'll defend China here a bit, as they are improving (at the cost of competing with other, less regulated countries, the irony).
And the cherry on top: those "cheap" items are heavily subsidized from multiple places, including postal fees. When the local production gets extinguished (and it won't come back easily, as "know-how" people will be retired) those prices will change.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but it seems like Anthropic has quietly 4x'd the real cost of the Pro plan. There are 168 hours in a week, and if I'm able to (safely) bet on 40 hours of use, realistically, I just lost 75% of the value of the plan.
What are the reasonable local alternatives? 128 GB of ram, reasonably-newish-proc, 12 GB of vram? I'm okay waitign for my machine to burn away on LLM experiments I'm running, but I don't want to simply stop my work and wake up at 3 AM to start working again..
Pro is just a paid demo. I hit the limit all the time on a small project, and I'm not even doing anything weird. The product is still great, though.
At work, we checked out a bunch of options, and almost everyone chose something different, so the competition is though.
IME this leads you to consider more and more featureful languages which are worse and worse at actually building software, and never match the flexibility of a tool like pen and paper.
Poor design is your own fault. Write more, draw more, prototype more. You may need to develop your own notation, you may need to get better at drawing or invest in a drawing tool. You may need to learn another programming language, which you use only for prototyping.
The design of your system does not need to be perfectly represented in your source code. The source code needs to produce runnable machine code, which behaves in the ways that your design dictates, and that's the only link between the design, the code, and the running system. Programming languages today are pretty good at producing working software, but not very good at doing that and designing systems and communicating designs and documenting choices, etc.