This is awesome! I had this problem when building a datagrid where cells would dynamically render textarea. IIRC I ended up doing a simple canvas measurement, but I had all the text and font properties static, and even then it was hellish to get it right.

Poor take. In the last three years alone they've played over 100 concerts. Their set is two hours. They're all in/approaching their 70s. If that's not a band, I'm a pterodactyl.

Even if they are indeed a band, that doesn't mean you are not a pterodactyl, mind you.

But pterodactyl are pretty cool too my mind, so no offense really.

You won't even notice the pterodactyls - they're often in the bathroom!

But the p is silent.

I think GPs point is that you'll soon not even be able to make those choices.

Now every toilet on the market only flushes number one. But hey, they're so much cheaper.

> `child({ ...obj })` easily solves this, for example

Spreading doesn't prevent you from mutating nested fields. The fact that you think this is an easy problem puts all your other choices under question.

Feel free to question anything you like and I'll help you find the answers.

This is a well-trodden path. All aspects of object mutation and its effects are obvious and well-known. What is pass by ref and what is pass by val is also pretty obvious. One can easily pass in primitive values and not worry about two-way binding if they choose to. One can also easily not mutate any props they receive from their parents. This is already the best practice in eslint for like 10 years. This is not easy, this is trivial.

I'd rather see some real concerns.

PSA: get an etymotic in ear phones, play some quiet music, and forget you're flying. Those things become your eardrums.

https://etymotic.com/product/er2xr-earphones/

They're pretty good, but not great. Just passive noise cancelling.

My AirPods Pros block noise better actually, but I have after-market foam eartips on them.

Regardless, the problem is less speakerphone music and more shrill child voices and screams. No eartips can block those frequencies well it seems.

That's how I read it too, and how I relate to it.

I have the exact same feeling as you towards coding AI for hobby projects. Though this sentiment isn't new, and AI is just a detail.

I'm not a musician, but I'm attracted to synthesizers and bought a couple in the past just for fun. I immediately get caught in a quicksand of DAWs and plugins and whatnot, which kill the fun for me (it's too similar to work), but at the same time I can't ignore the tools because now the synth is too "bland".

It's a weird kind of FOMO paralysis.

I am a musician and electronic music is my primary jam. I once bought way too many plugins on Black Friday because there were so many incredible deals. The next day, I opened my preferred DAW and I was just overwhelmed with options. It caused my creativity to short-circuit. I didn't make music again for months because of the sheer sense of drowning in new tools.

Of course, every time I've ever added just one tool I've been fine. I explore it and learn it and figure out the limitations and how to make it do what I want (or decide I don't like it).

The brain is funny. It's not always possible to rationally explain our motivations and blockers in a way that feels satisfying. I'm a big believer that words help us understand feelings / reality. Not being able to articulate the things that are blocking us satisfactorily makes it harder, or possibly impossible, to work through them or try to tackle them or work around them.

And then there are the times when we can perfectly explain our feelings in a way that accurately represents the inner turmoil but it's just a crappy new reality. I think that's a lot of what people are feeling wrt coding agents.

> The brain is funny.

The brain is inefficient - at least, in regard to planning work.

There’s so many feelings etc getting in the way - when the real thought should only be:

“what’s next to properly fulfill my chosen goal?”.

Because enshittification wouldn't happen in a centrally-planned economy? What's the basis of this?

Pasting a bit from another comment...

The whole idea of enshittification is that someone makes a high-quality app (or whatever), outcompetes all other entrants, and locks down the market. Then, having acquired pricing power, they can raise prices or, more often (as these tools aren't 'priced' from the perspective of the consumer, but rather indirectly funded e.g. through ads) lower the quality of the product. The steps in this chain are not inherent to 'making products', they emerge entirely from the confines and incentives of our market-based economy.

And it's not just "centrally planned economies" that avoid this. We see evidence from historical modes of production like artisinal handicraft. Despite there not being a free market of producers (as guilds generally possessed legally-enforced monopolies over saleable production) the general quality of goods thereby produced did not generally trend downwards. Indeed, we can see from the sources that in cases where quality was known to have dropped, popular backlash led to interventions, e.g. the various Parisian bread laws, or hallmarking regulations for goldsmiths. Obviously, similar mechanisms exist today in the form of governmental regulations, but the problem with free market economies is that they produce actors both incentivized and empowered to hamstring the government, capture regulators, and ultimately undermine that self-same free market, to their own benefit.

This feels to me like a false dichotomy. The only alternative to the current way of doing things isn't a planned command economy, no matter what "libertarians" or tankies might argue.

> I bet you 100% that in any planned economy OTA updates would still happen.

How so? In a democratically planned economy, we would expect that economic decisions considered by the majority of the population to be unwise/upsetting/etc. would not take place. Yes, many/most decisions would probably happen 'behind the scenes', according to the delegated authority of smaller committees or individual officials, but that's only so long as those decisions don't cause bad results for the broader populace.

More broadly, how exactly would enshittification take place in an economy not based around market principles? The whole idea is that someone makes a high-quality app (or whatever), outcompetes all other entrants, and locks down the market. Then, having acquired pricing power, they can raise prices or, more often (as these tools aren't 'priced' from the perspective of the consumer, but rather indirectly funded e.g. through ads) lower the quality of the product. These steps are not intrinsic to reality, they emerge entirely from the confines of our market-based economy.

And yes, you can argue that in an "ideal market" they wouldn't happen, but a truism of modern economics is that "sufficiently free markets" produce actors with the power and desire to capture/destroy said free market.

> person insists they completely understood it before but just forgot after a few days.

I don't doubt this, to be honest.

I have the feeling of learning a lot when coding with agents. New features, patterns, entire languages... It's very satisfactory asking questions and getting answers in as much detail as you want, with examples, etc.

Except I forget it all soon after. Because I didn't put the effort. Easy come easy goes .

> a criminal wanting to prey on others risk-free

E.g. a Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks?

GP was obviously talking about AI's abilities, not people's.