qwery (u/qwery) - Readit News

qwery commented on We rendered and embedded one million CAD files cad-search-three.vercel.a... · Posted by u/DavidFerris

qwery · 2 days ago

"box with a hole in it" resulted in a number of boxes and most of these did obviously have holes in them. some did not appear to, but being that they were largely enclosures for some sort of device (as opposed to storage or transport) I'll assume there was some hidden fastener clearance holes or something.

I really only wanted one hole in my box though, so I adjusted the query to "box with a single hole in it". the results looked indentical. except for one that stood out. I would link to the particular model, but there was no way to do that. this model appears to be a rectangular bathroom basin, on its side. I'd describe it as perhaps a ~currently fashionable porcelain design, but it could be a concrete 'getting shit done' sink, or a model from The Sims (the first one). so box-like perhaps, but not many people would describe it as a box. I guess my search continues (elsewhere)...

(actually interesting bit about natural language: I know that a box with two (or more) holes in it has a single hole in it, but most English natural language parsers (humans) will notice that specifying 'single' would be redundant if I wanted any number more than zero, so it's extremely unlikely that I was looking for a multi-hole box.)

where did you steal the models from, by the way? just curious. the original context in which they were found would actually be helpful if someone was for some reason trying to actually use this as a tool. [ed: saw the OP's comment down the page -- you can include a comment with the submission IIRC]

also if you don't have the 3D model spinning incessantly, having the page open won't be obnoxious and it won't (have to) waste power

qwery commented on End of an era for me: no more self-hosted git kraxel.org/blog/2026/01/t... · Posted by u/dzulp0d

kstrauser · 2 days ago

Oh please. That ship has sailed. I'm marginally sympathetic to people who don't run JavaScript on their browsers for a variety of reasons, but they've deliberately opted out of the de facto modern web. JS is as fundamental to current design as CSS. If you turn it off, things might work, but almost no one is testing that setup, nor should they reasonably be expected to.

This has zero to do with Adtech for 99.99% of uses, either. Web devs like to write TypeScript and React because that's a very pleasant tech stack for writing web apps, and it's not worth the effort for them to support a deliberately hamstrung browser for < 0.1% of users (according to a recent Google report).

See also: feel free to disable PNG rendering, but I'm not going to lift a finger to convert everything to GIFs.

qwery · 2 days ago

the recent google report claimed that less than 0.1% of users have javascript disabled ... like for every website, or just some, or?

your PNG/GIF thing is nonsense (false equivalence, at least) and seems like deliberate attempt to insult

> I'm marginally sympathetic

you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else. outside of these three words, you actually seem to see anyone doing this as completely invalid and that the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.

qwery commented on Developers Are Solving the Wrong Problem caseysoftware.com/blog/de... · Posted by u/speckx

iamwil · a month ago

Of course they have no literal heads. Please use a more gracious interpretation when reading.

qwery · a month ago

There's that "they" again.

If you're reading past the first sentence this time -- it is obvious, yes. So why use such language to describe the software? Your deliberate choice to use misleading language is not only obviously incorrect, but harmful.

qwery commented on Developers Are Solving the Wrong Problem caseysoftware.com/blog/de... · Posted by u/speckx

iamwil · a month ago

I have a hunch we'll eventually swing back when we find the limits of vibe coding--in that LLMs also can only hold so much complexity in their heads, even if it's an order of magnitude (or more) greater than ours. If we make it understandable for humans then it'll definitely be trivial for LLMs, which frees them up to do other things. I mean, they don't have infinite layers or units to capture concepts. So the more symmetrical, consistent, and fractal (composable) you can make your code, the easier time an LLM will have with it to solve problems.

qwery · a month ago

LLMs have no heads.

No one has, to my knowledge, demonstrated a machine learning program with any understanding or complexity of behaviour exceeding that of a human.

LLMs don't have understanding.

Frees up who, the LLM or the human? Same question for "they".

What does symmetrical, fractal code look like in this context? How does this property assist the LLM's parser?

qwery commented on Developers Are Solving the Wrong Problem caseysoftware.com/blog/de... · Posted by u/speckx

KasianFranks · a month ago

What really needs to be done is to stop using the term “vibe coding” for what really is similar to the “owner-builder” movement in the general contracting/construction industry. Foreman and GCs are not owner-builders. We need another name.

qwery · a month ago

There has never been a qualification required to be allowed to build software for yourself. This is unlike building a house, which most jurisdictions recognise as something that should not be undertaken by someone without the ability to demonstrate a basic understanding of the process.

So, sure, once there's some bare minimum qualification that one must attain to be an "owner-builder" of software, do that. Until then, vibe-coding perfectly describes what vibe-coders do -- except for the vibes, which aren't (obviously).

qwery commented on AI coding assistants are getting worse? spectrum.ieee.org/ai-codi... · Posted by u/voxadam

GuB-42 · a month ago

> What I then saw was him struggling for one hour with some simple extension to his project. He didn't manage to finish in the hour what he was planning to. And when I had some thought about how much time it would have cost me by hand, I found it would have taken me just as long.

For all who are doing that, what is the experience of coding in a livestream? It is something I never attempted, the simple idea makes me feel uncomfortable. A good portion of my coding would be rather cringe, like spending way too long on a stupid copy-paste or sign error that my audience would have noticed right away. On the other hand, sometimes, I am really fast because everything is in my head, but then I would probably lose everyone. I am impressed when looking at live coders by how fluid it looks compared to my own work, maybe there is a rubber duck effect at work here.

All this to say that I don't know how working solo compares to a livestream. It is more or less efficient, maybe it doesn't matter that much when you get used to it.

qwery · a month ago

Have done it, never enough of an audience to be totally humiliated. It's never going to be more efficient.

But as for your cringe issue that the audience noticed, one could see that to be a benefit -- prefer to have someone say e.g. "you typed `Normalise` (with an 's') again, C++ is written in U.S. English, don't you know / learn to spell, you slime" upfront than waiting for compiler to tell you that `Normalise` doesn't exist, maybe?

qwery commented on AI coding assistants are getting worse? spectrum.ieee.org/ai-codi... · Posted by u/voxadam

queueueue · a month ago

Ironic that I’m going to give another anecdotal experience here, but I’ve noticed this myself too. I catch myself trying to keep on prompting after an llm has not been able to solve some problem in a specific way. While I can probably do it faster at that point if I switch to doing it fully myself. Maybe because the llm output feels like its ‘almost there’, or some sunken cost fallacy.

qwery · a month ago

Not saying this is you, but another way to look at it is that engaging in that process is training you (again, not you, the user) -- the way you get results is by asking the chat bot, so that's what you try first. You don't need sunk cost or gambling mechanics, it's just simple conditioning.

Press lever --> pellet.

Want pellet? --> press lever.

Pressed lever but no pellet? --> press lever.

qwery commented on AI coding assistants are getting worse? spectrum.ieee.org/ai-codi... · Posted by u/voxadam

Kerrick · a month ago

I feel like I've been incredibly productive with AI assisted programming over the past few weeks, but it's hard to know what folks' baselines are. So in the interest of transparency, I pushed it all up to sourcehut and added Co-Authored-By footers to the AI-assisted commits (almost all of them).

Everything is out there to inspect, including the facts that I:

- was going 12-18 hours per day

- stayed up way too late some nights

- churned a lot (+91,034 -39,257 lines)

- made a lot of code (30,637 code lines, 11,072 comment lines, plus 4,997 lines of markdown)

- ended up with (IMO) pretty good quality Ruby (and unknown quality Rust).

This is all just from the first commit to v0.8.0. https://git.sr.ht/~kerrick/ratatui_ruby/tree/v0.8.0

What do you think: is this fast, or am I just as silly as the live-streamer?

P.S. - I had an edge here because it was a green-field project and it was not for my job, so I had complete latitude to make decisions.

qwery · a month ago

I don't really know Ruby, so maybe I'm missing something major, but your commit messages seem extremely verbose yet messy (I can't make heads or tails of them) and I'm seeing language like "deprecated" and a stream of "releases" within a period of hours and it just looks a bit like nonsense.

Don't take "nonsense" negatively, please -- I mean it looks like you were having fun, which is certainly to be encouraged.

qwery commented on European Commission issues call for evidence on open source lwn.net/Articles/1053107/... · Posted by u/pabs3

qwery · a month ago

This sounds more negative than I want it to, but it seems like this is missing the forest for the trees. There's absolutely a real problem here and I am fully supportive of projects seeking to address this.

Governments around the world throw public money at private enterprise to solve all of their IT problems. This sounds good, I guess, to the Americans in the room. Until recently the US actually had a great number of "open source" projects -- NASA, NOAA, come to mind (the weather satellites are still going). Open projects, owned by the people -- this is the obviously correct way to do things. You can engage the business sector when it makes sense to do so, but a country shouldn't be run by -- be dependent on -- a Microsoft, or a PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Then they delete the production database and write the people a post mortem about how they'll improve for next time. Then they profit from war crimes that your government even quietly admits are a bad thing occasionally. Then they <if you aren't aware of the UK post office scandal, you should be>.

"Open source" isn't a solution. Free software would be a better look. But the entire world is completely dependent on IT systems and goverments don't employ enough software developers. Not "developers" to "refresh" the UI again, not Autodesk certified Call of Duty Black Ops 9 Micopilot Copilot 666 developers -- normal boring software developers -- public servants.

Make it dull. It's your people you're fucking with. Flashy app bad, boring UI good -- it's a tax return.

The thing that should be happening is serious public sector software development. By the people, for the people. Keep it in-house. I shouldn't have to say to keep it open. It belongs to the people.

qwery commented on European Commission issues call for evidence on open source lwn.net/Articles/1053107/... · Posted by u/pabs3

amavect · a month ago

Free Software should rename to Liberty Software. Instead, advocates loaned Spanish "libre" in the ugly FLOSS acronym (Free/Libre Open Source Software). If only we used "liberty" then we could stop quibbling over the multiple meanings of "free" and just talk about software liberty.

"Free as in bonus" vs "free as in liberty".

qwery · a month ago

later, ... there are 14 competing jargon files.

"Free software" is a fine descriptor. It's needlessly confusing to repeat that "beer as in slurred speech" thing, though. Free software can be free "as in beer"[0], but the way it gets said makes it sound like it zero cost software is an anti-goal, rather than pointing out that it's not the true goal. Then the "free as in speech" thing is kind of pointless because you can just say "free as in freedom".

Free software is about fundamental computer freedom -- freedom to own your computer, inspect and modify, etc. -- we already have this word.

[0] where who why free beer ever? 0% relatable, 0/10 would still like a free beer though