I'd argue genes nor life has a "goal". They are what they are because they've been successful at continuing their existence. Would you say a rock's goal is not to get broken?
Only because genes/organisms can make choices (changes to its programming, or decisions) to optimize their path towards their goal.
A rock is maybe not a good counterexample, but a crystal is because it can grow over time. So in some sense, it tries not to break. However a crystal cannot make any choices; it's behavior is locked into the chemistry it starts with.
The tools are still in their infancy, but it would likely be a series of metrics such as complexity, repetition, test coverage issues (such as tests that cover nothing meaningful), architectural issues that remain unfixed far beyond the point where it would have been more beneficial to refactor, superfluous instructions and comments, etc.
I took a Computer Science class decades ago that used that book as the core of the class material. I don't remember a single thing about that class now except that I hate that book and the professor bragging about designing cockpit instruments or some such. I learned more out of a cognitive psych class.
I use Xreal Air Pros for gaming and sometimes working if I'm mobile. Resolution isn't great, but I find them better than looking at a small-ish laptop screen or the Steam Deck screen. You can definitely read text on them, but maybe not small text. It also helps to have prescription inserts.
And now I'm curious if the Steam Frame allows inserts or fits well with glasses on.
It depends, the frameworks I've seen require a ton of boilerplate (ie. the things tools like create-react-app sets up for you) and have quite a learning curve. Using what you already know is simpler, and some of us know vanilla html, css, and js. It also very much depends on what you're making. Many sites don't necessarily need much interactivity or to constantly receive updated data.
From what I've heard anecdotally, there have been a bunch more PRs and bug reports generated by AI. But I've also heard they're generally trash and just wasting the project maintainers' time.
And they're typically the ones cheering the loudest for LLM centric coding. It's hard to believe in something people you don't respect are saying is the best thing they've ever seen.
reply