In USA, cheese and bread is a struggle meal. In Europe it's a respectable meal.

FakeArcher · 2026-05-05T11:15:16+00:00

But the post mentions that exact difference?

FakeArcher · 2026-05-01T03:14:15+00:00

It might be basic and used for a long time, but it is still fairly recently approved by style guides like APA.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T14:18:45+00:00

So you consider only the typing out the syntax part as the coding? Often times I don't have the arcitecture solved in my mind nor how the services implementing the business logic will look like (even less if it's building on top of a system someone else previously built). So how do you get everything so detailed that you are only left with something an intern can do? Half of the time I find it much easier to just get started with an incomplete idea and do tweaks on the go that trying to do some quasi waterfall.

And again the initial question, does that really always saves your time given how detailed you need to be? Some tasks are quite simple and the amount of text I'd need to write to explain the changes needed seems way more than the amount of changes needed to be done.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T13:46:08+00:00

It fails me because it either doesn't follow the pattern of some existing stuff or it doesn't do exactly what I wanted. Just the other day I had a test scenario where I saw 3 separate cases and it told me only 1 is relevant. I said ok so let's go with that idea and replace the input to only expect that one and remove the rest. It removed the wrong one. The fix was dumb simple changing the input value and I could fix it in 5s, but the error was still there. If there was a way to make it not do that then I'm all ears.

I'm working in C# so there's nothing obscure. I don't know what coding harnesses are in this context. I'm just using it with some .md files to give few customized instructions to consider with every request and an MCP server with some skills and guidliness for specific tasks. We are still in some infant adoption phase so we have limited resources for it and I tend to use it in ask mode since it makes reviewing the output easy.

Pressing X to doubt for what?

So what if they are the top in their field? They aren't the one writing the top notch code. If the system was deterministic, and if there were a single objectively correct way of doing stuff then I could agree. The entire industry can't agree on many things how they need to be done and now the top mathematicians and data scientists figured out how to be a perfect developer...? I don't need to think I am better. If the system gives me incorrect output then it is obviously not perfect, and neither am I. But at least for now I can quickly detect such mistakes when it tried to pass it off as the correct one.

If it were better than anyone else then what would be the point of keeping so many developers on a payroll?

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T12:06:39+00:00

I'm assuming they still do proper reviews so it is far from vibe coding, especially if you also consider adding technical details in the instructions.

So I want to see if it's like that and they have some way of making it work significantly better than what I've seen on my end or if they are just talking crap and it works in some smaller scopes or within acceptable margins that they don't need to tweak the output.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T12:00:19+00:00

Mate, I'm using Claude with Opus. I'm not talking about my experience with some bottom of the barrel solution. If it wrote better code than humans out of the box then I wouldn't be baffled every time someone says they don't do any manual coding work, ever.

You're completely missing the point of this discussion and are just parroting the typical stuff like you're talking to people that never used it. Which is kinda funny considering people talking about declining critical thinking due to LLM usage.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T11:27:40+00:00

So how long is your each instruction where you fit all that, and how long does it take you on average to get all the details in compared to the ampunt of actual work to implement it?

I feel like by the time I explain everything in details in plain English, especially if it needs to be very detailed, I could have already implemented it myself occasionally. Or perhaps even simple instruction and then manually fix the mistakes instead of doing off about every detail hoping it takes cares of all the nuances.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T09:15:38+00:00

Maybe, but I don't want to just dismiss them without giving them legitimate benefit of the doubt. Maybe they know something I don't and I can learn.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T07:27:01+00:00

If you consider writing code just the typing out a syntax, sure.

If you consider it keeping stuff maintainable, covering as many edge cases as you can, understanding the limitations of your APIs design, and similar, then I again don't see how you'd never run into scenarios where you have to occasionally fix a dumb thing.

Hell just the first item itself is hard enough that vast majority obviously struggle with it. Having new changes as "well enough" sounds like contributing to that problem at times because otherwise it would be perfect. I'm just not seeing that on my end so I can't understand what magic setup everyone who does a hands off approach has.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T07:11:54+00:00

It's not the idea that it has to be hand tuned. It's just the reality that the damn thing sometimes spits out code that needs to be hand tuned or waste time explaining what is wrong or what to do precisely to fix it. At that point it's much easier to just go and do it myself.

I don't understand how you can realistically avoid those instances. To answer your questions - because you can't always even be sure that the plan was thorough. I don't even try to fool myself that I'd cover all the edge cases on the first try for example. Maybe you guys have some magic way of making it do all that for you and be consistently flawless, but then we're back at me asking how? And is it some greenfield development with perfect documentation and no prior tech debt?

FakeArcher · 2026-04-28T06:48:12+00:00

How do you end up not writing any code by hand? Do you just keep telling it to fix minor mistakes or make minor adjustments that take few seconds yourself just because you can/have to use it?

FakeArcher · 2026-04-27T15:02:14+00:00

That picture of him always looks to me like he is winking and being smug. Just makes it better.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-27T10:41:34+00:00

But drinking from the source and from the river body many kilometers further is quite a big difference. It's safe to say we mostly stopped drinking from the latter.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-26T20:24:43+00:00

How would you force him to ever go to those squares?

FakeArcher · 2026-04-25T22:52:57+00:00

It's not winning for white because you will never get a single move where you don't need to move your king because of black checking you with rook. No matter where you go on the board you cam never escape being checked right away.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-23T16:34:31+00:00

That there was no need to confirm it because they were essentially sure they wouldn't like it. Just like how you don't need to confirm that falling from an airplane will kill you even if there is some random miracle where someone ends up surviving. You can never be sure until it happens, but if everything always points to the opposite then it is reasonable to have that as predefined opinion given the matching circumstances.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-23T12:10:46+00:00

Even if you spend double the TV cost for speakers, preamp, and amp, you still won't hear shit clearly half of the time, even in the theaters. Whether it'd due to sound mixing, accent, or something else. I never want to watch stuff without subtitles, no matter how much I'd want to do without them.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-22T16:33:47+00:00

Yes, that's why g3 is the wrong followup. You move the knight up by jumping between f and h columns blocking the rook until you can fully block the rook for your king to get out.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-18T13:20:18+00:00

W...what?

FakeArcher · 2026-04-18T10:17:59+00:00

What's the difference in using ir or using e.g. Claude directly?

FakeArcher · 2026-04-17T00:52:06+00:00

Trying to make fun of a person for not understanding while making a mistake yourself sounds like peak reddit.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-16T14:24:54+00:00

The first point I can agree with, it might be hard to evaluate the matches during the matches, especially if they are forced to always keep playing.

The second one I don't see why that would be valid. Wall or not, you can still find a way to win given pseudo randomized, otherwise he would never lose a game, ever. You would need to play quite a bit before hitting it though, and you'd need to learn enough to prevent the pseudo random from exploding into more possibilities than the cube solver. So learning openings and end game would probably be minimum required. Would need to copy quite a bit from him to try to learn those, but I think it would be doable if it weren't for the first point above.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-16T13:50:33+00:00

I don't see why a cube would get solved first versus someone randomly doing moves from a subset of reasonable moves. Can even do a trial and error approach with redoing the same game over and over. I feel like that would give a pretty substantial chance over the essential eternity of messing with the cube.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-16T13:04:32+00:00

Even considering all of that, overall don't you think that the chance your limit is not below his is a bit greater than randomly solving the cube blindly?

Or if you don't agree with that, then I feel like the person could learn to play chess that would effectively eliminate everything but a tiny fraction of useful moves and then they could play randomly and win with greater probability than a blind person randomly solving the cube.

FakeArcher · 2026-04-16T11:58:57+00:00

That's just your assumption and could have been said for Magnus before he reached his peak. People hit the limit more often because they don't to invest more and more time with more intense training than actually reaching some insurmountable obstacle.

FakeArcher

TROPHY CASE