Between this and the debate about ideal method length with Ousterhout, my respect for Uncle Bob is plumbing new depths.
Readit Newso_nate commented on Clean Coder: The Dark Path (2017) blog.cleancoder.com/uncle... · Posted by u/andrewjf
o_nate commented on What if writing tests was a joyful experience? (2023) blog.janestreet.com/the-j... · Posted by u/ryanhn
This is a cool idea. I wish something like this existed for C#.
o_nate commented on AI-Generated Tests as Ceremony blog.ploeh.dk/2026/01/26/... · Posted by u/o_nate
Lots of good observations in this article. I think that barring the possibility that LLMs become able to generate perfect, bug-free code, the question of how AI-generated code can be integrated with TDD is an important one. And as the author correctly points out, simply having the AI generate tests in addition to code is not the answer.
o_nate commented on The largest number representable in 64 bits tromp.github.io/blog/2026... · Posted by u/tromp
To be pedantic, that is a instance of the Berry paradox [1] and no you can not [2] as that would be a violation of Godel's incompleteness theorems.
edit: To clarify further, you could create a new formal language L+ that axiomatically defines 0 as "largest number according to L", but that would no longer be L, it would be L+. For any given language with rules at this level of power you could not make that statement without creating a new language with even more powerful rules i.e. each specific set of rules is capped, you need to add more rules to increase that cap, but that is a different language.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox
[2] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-no-self-defeat...
It's not a paradox, because there is nothing logically inconsistent in my definition, unlike the Berry paradox.
o_nate commented on The largest number representable in 64 bits tromp.github.io/blog/2026... · Posted by u/tromp
Whatever largest number you can express in your system, I can represent a larger one in only one bit, using the following specification.
0=your largest number 1=your largest number + 1
Feels like the answer is probably uncertainty about inflation?
It does not pass the "friend test" in that if a human friend were to make such comments instead of ChatGPT making them, the human friend would be within his free speech rights to have made them. As such, I don't see any valid legal issue here affecting ChatGPT that should stand in court. I see possible ethical and objectivity issues, but not a valid legal issue.
It depends on the specifics of what was said. As the complaint states, OpenAI has yet to release the full transcripts.