I've never understood why people even _generate_ from the docs folder. If you've written it in markdown (which they nearly always do) then it's already rendered properly in Github. Or is it because they then publish those docs somewhere else?
> Or is it because they then publish those docs somewhere else?
Exactly, I use Sphinx to make a nice website from the markdown sources (although it doesn't have to be markdown). That includes generating a full API reference page from all the docstrings.
They mailed me too, and I did read it in full. There's a link right there in the e-mail. I read it, and understood it's not at all what everyone here is claiming.
The email contains the full subscriber agreement (which is also the link in the email).
The full text for that section:
All Service Plans may include: (i) promotional content, (ii) sponsorships, and (iii) advertisements before/after playback of Content and in channels, live/as-live, special events, and any third-party services content.
Perhaps you could share, from the email, what you read that everyone else is missing.
The changes are intended to cover the ads that are in pre-existing non-removable content. Nothing is changing, they're just making it clear that this is happening (or perhaps more unclear, judging by the response here).
Not the parent, but it reads a lot like written by AI. It has that typical breathless style that's exhausting just from reading.
Also, looking at the code, the whole project looks vibe coded, no human would write such comments. Everything in a single git commit also looks "suspicious". It's cool that LLMs can write Z80 asm now, but yeah "labour of love"... tsk tsk tsk...
When your manager gives you the task of building a complex product with a more or less vague "do what I mean" specification, and once a week shows up for 2 minutes to nudge you into a different direction, would you agree when the manager calls this his own "labour of love" when you did 99% of the actual work and thousands of micro-decisions along the way that your manager didn't even know had to be made?
So educate me then what I'm missing in the 'agentic loop' workflow, oh wise one ;)
I'm using this sort of spec-driven + feedback-loop workflow at work to pretty to good effect, and would say I'm quite familiar with the pros and cons.
IMHO the main downside is that you're simply not as familiar with the code base as before, unless you spend just as much time studying the LLM output as writing the code manually in the first place.
E.g. you have about the same distance to the actual implementation as a manager of a traditional programming team who from time to time skims over the source code to check for signals that things start to go sideways, and otherwise mainly feeds feature specification tickets into the team which are coming from a separate 'design department'.
I also would never call any of this work a 'labour of love' either. Not that this sort of soulless "specification-in-implementation-out" was much different before though, it's just how industrial software development works - essentially an assembly line for features.
> I also would never call any of this work a 'labour of love' either.
That’s a you problem. This could very well be a labour of love and nothing about any of this precludes it from being a labour of love.
> E.g. you have about the same distance to the actual implementation as a manager of a traditional programming team who from time to time skims over the source code to check for signals that things start to go sideways, and otherwise mainly feeds feature specification tickets into the team which are coming from a separate 'design department'
I guess you’re rather young or not really acquainted with the history of computer science, because that’s the exact same argument people used to make about compilers… and then GUIs…and then high-level programming languages… and then OOP… the list goes on and on and on.
Every time a new tool arrives that disrupts the way something is traditionally done, those that feel insecure about their work tend to lash out with the same “no true Scotsman” arguments.
I’m not saying AI is perfect or that it replaces programmers in any way. What I’m saying is that it’s just a different way of going about the business of programming. It’s just yet another level of abstraction.
> I guess you’re rather young or not really acquainted with the history of computer science.
Lol, thanks for the compliment. I've been programming computers since around 1984. But I learned to recognize snake oil when I see it (since around the mid-90s when the OOP hype was in full swing and I was a true believer for a while, the OOP hype did indeed have a lot in common with the current AI hype - e.g. about 10% useful, 90% snake oil, but it took the industry nearly two decades to recognize how harmful the OOP hype actually was even to the original idea of OOP itself... different topic though).
Also I think you're retconning/simplifying computing history a bit, it's not a linear evolution from low-level to high-level (e.g. when C was created, there were already much higher level programming languages common), and understanding the compiler output on CPU instruction level and the hardware it runs on is still very necessary for proper optimization work, even when working in a high level language.
E.g. you can't simply ignore the lowest level foundations even after adding new abstraction levels on top.
PS: what's up with all those throwaway accounts in the thread anyway?
I use claude at work, I have to read its wall of text all day long, it's instantly recognizable. Like many others I'm developing an aversion toward it. The OP's project is pretty cool but I just couldn't read the readme.
Do constitutional rights apply to non-citizens? I always thought the constitution of the USA was for USA citizens, but then I'm not from the USA and am watching all this from very far away.
Most of them do. They're usually constructed as restrictions on the government's authority rather than grants of rights to a specific group of people, and there are court rulings clearly stating rights like freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable search apply to any person subject to the government's authority.
Non-citizens don't get the right to bear arms as far as I know.
This *1000. It's a supreme failure on our educational system and society at large that most Americans don't think about our government and our rights in these terms.
The Constitution actually takes away our rights. It has to, it lays out the powers the government has over us. Even the bill of rights doesn't technically give us rights---it explicitly details the ways our government cannot operate.
It depends on the right, some are describing "person", some are "the people". E.g. the 2nd amendment talks about the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms not being infringed and there are federal laws on the books directly barring aliens from keeping firearms so "the people" evidently does not apply to anyone everywhere in the Constitution.
Most of them do. The Constitution is clear on when it talks about citizens versus all people. The exceptions are things like the right to vote or hold federal office.
I don't watch Apple's events, ads, or any other marketing. When the actual devices or "inventions" are released a few days later, it's very obvious who watched the marketing material.
At best, this guy is brainwashed, but more likely he's just complicit in the ~lies~ marketing.
It really isn’t. Not necessarily. Sometimes it’s just doing what you need to do to keep your job. If you have ever worked in a maybe organization like this you might have done that kind of thing yourself. You might not even have realized it at the time because you were so caught up in keeping your head down and surviving the bureaucracy.
I heard the novel term "Golf Driven Development" the other day. Essentially it's where software/services aren't sold because people wanted or asked for them, they're sold because one CEO played golf with another CEO (with the express purpose of making this happen).
Salesforce, Microsoft, Atlassian, and co. are obviously sold on their merits.
reply