> that devs get really reliant and even addicted on coding agents

An alternative perspective is, devs highly value coding agents, and are willing to pay more because they're so useful. In other words, the market value of this limited resource is being adjusted to be closer to reality.

It's not limited though there are alternative providers even now, much less when the price goes up. Chinese providers, European ones, local models.

> It's not limited though

Inference is not free, so all providers have a financial limit, and all providers have limited GPU/memory, so there's a physical material limit.

I suggest looking at the profits of these companies (while they scramble to stay competitive).

> but you say you don't have the problem

I think it's very clear stated that they HAD the problem, but were able to work through it, resulting them in not HAVING the problem.

So, it's more like they broke their leg, it healed, and now they no longer have a broken leg.

edit: I am dumb.

> I think it's very clear stated that they HAD the problem, but were able to work through it, resulting them in not HAVING the problem.

From their comment:

>> though I should also say, I don't have suicidal thoughts to begin with

How, from that, can you possibly get to the idea that they ever had suicidal thoughts? It's certainly not "clear stated" that they had the problem of suicidal thoughts.

The comment I responded to is a nonsense comment. They say they solved the problem of suicidal thoughts by adapting the way they think and also say that they never had suicidal thoughts to begin with.

It is possible that they're just a terrible communicator, but, again, nothing is "clear stated" about them having had suicidal thoughts.

I re-read their comment. You are correct.

The market never went that way with fission (except France?). What would be the difference with fusion?

Need a model trained on closeup/macro shots of everything, to use for upscaling, then run that, as a kernel, over the whole image.

Exactly what I was thinking

> my motivation to consume the content of the page drops.

I suspect this is a feature backed by an innate brain process related to down-weighting the storage potential of information from untrustworthy people, as a type of resistance to the human brain equivalent of a "poison" attack. For example, some guy that lied to you in the past walks up. Brain releases chemical that reduces "excitement", brain doesn't store said BS as readily.

Yes, as any old person will tell you, everyone is rude and disrespectful these days (by comparison).

The eufemism treadmill works bot ways. Eufemisms loose their politeness. Swearwords loose their strength (to be replaced by new ones). Language changes. I don't think people are inherently more rude and disrespectful.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise." - Socrates

To get around this, I have it log the relevant inputs, so it can be reproduced.

The whole concept of allowing a flaky unit test to exist is wild and dangerous to me. It makes a culture of ignoring real failures in what, should be, deterministic code.

Well, if people can't reproduce the failures, people won't fix them.

So, yes, logging the inputs is extremely important. So is minimizing any IO dependency in your tests.

But then that runs against another important rule, that integration tests should test the entire system, IO included. So, your error handling must always log very clearly the cause of any IO error it finds.

Try using it unplugged.

I think most (all?) would already comply. What laptop do you see as not having a user replacable battery? Even MacBook can be swapped out pretty easily [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTon2jqI-A

I won't name brands, but there are lots of low cost "tablet with keyboard" laptops with glued battery. Just a couple of months ago I had to ditch one.

Anyway, if most comply, why not make it mandatory? Or are these kind of directives only aimed at picking fights with manufacturers?

Note that I am not suggesting that all laptops should have USB-C chargers, that's a separate directive. I mean user replaceable batteries available for at least 5 years, without requiring major surgery to replace.

MacBooks are not easy at all. I did it twice and it's an annoying, dangerous mess (danger of tearing the battery open). Apple won't even bother with it. If you want an "official job", they will just replace the whole top shell including the keyboard, because they can't be bothered to remove the glue. And of course it's expensive because of that.

8 minutes to complete, using only a screw driver and credit card, once every three or four years, is definitely "annoying". But, I'd still say it's also "pretty easy" (I never said "easy"). My reference frame may be different than yours.

Have you actually done it? Mine were 15" MacBooks, not 13" like in the video – maybe that makes a difference. It took me about 20 minutes. In the video the outer two battery packs just pop up without much resistance – that is not how it was in my case. It needed lots of acetone and patience and it was a messy process. I also had to apply quite a lot of force and was worried I might tear a battery pack open in the process (they were already swollen and looked like they might explode any moment).

The noname replacement batteries also have nowhere near the same capacity that the Apple batteries had originally.

You also need to force them to justify their requirements, since asking for something way beyond what you actually need is an easy way to hide the fact that they don't understand what they actually need.

In my experience, people like that asking for 10x the actual requirement is fairly usual. But, every once in a while you hear someone say "we should buy the best, so we don't have to worry about it in the future" (when I heard it, that was a 500x cost difference).

> You also need to force them to justify their requirements, since asking for something way beyond what you actually need is an easy way to hide the fact that they don't understand what they actually need.

I've had a lot of success by shortcutting the refinement/request sessions with clients by simply asking "What is it you need to do?".

Due to an esclation from a client, I joined a meeting with a dev and a client to try and figure out why a single report is taking over a month to deliver. Dev reported (privately) to me that the client keeps changing their mind about what needs to be in the final report.

When I finally asked the client my magic question, it turns out they may not even need that specific report anyway - they're just not sure what can be retrieved, so they wanted one single report for every single thing they may want to do, now and in the future, attempting to squish hierarchical data and tabular data from SQL queries into a single gigantic report.

There's no way the dev was ever going to have a finished report for them. I broke it down into several simpler reports, some of which already exist, which turned a very frustrated client into, well, not exactly happy, but at least they are less frustrated now. They have some of the data generated daily now, and we can do the other stuff as and when they see a need for those reports.