I like Bazzite because when I get into some kind of hyperfocus rabbit hole with some kind of tool/language/library/project, it basically forces me to make a Distrobox for it instead of making a mess in my system, and I can easily clean up all of the random packages and dependencies once I get border with it and inevitably start running out of disk space.
As someone who worked in cybersecurity, amd left because the whole field is just snake-oil amd scam, I totally get you.
The field is not for anyone who actually cares about security. It took me few years of trying to realize that, and I left once I found out, but the truth is...
There are mandated check-lists and standarts. There's a box for every PC having an AV. There's a box saying that "this app is pen-tested yearly by someone with a pentest certification", or " the company is using a certified communicatiom channel".
It does not say that you have to fix the things they found in the pentest. It does not ask whether the "certified platform" is selling your data, or is owned by US, or not.
The whole field is just a bunch of extremely annoying checkboxes for company to deal with, and doing it well is actually an annoyance, and they are willing to pay extra so they don't have to do that.
I've seen the same critical vulnerabity repeating for 5 years in each yearly pentest, because the checkbox for ISO just says they do the test. Ot sucks.
But I see where is MS going with this. Ot's exactly for this - to have an easy way how to fill the checkbox of "you have certified AV on every device".
What was the non-determinism in compilers? Honest question. Like, where does it comes from?
If you had a bug in a compiler, and a code that caused it, would it, for the same input and architecture only show some of the time? Does it included randomness in how it handles output?
Being bug-ridden is not the same as non-determinstic, if you can reproduce the bug everywhere and thus fix it, so I'm honestly curious where would the non-determinism of compilers come from.
Tbh I trusted him up until the point where he compared AI to compilers. That's just absolutely crutial misunderstanding where the issues with AI usage lies. Comparing using compiler to code, vs using AI to code, is so immensly stupid that I have started doubting him.
Not because I don't trust in his skill, but because AI is addicting and dealing with additction/risk of psychosis responsibly takes an entirely different skillset. And resorting to toxicity when defending AI with absolutely bonkers arguments, like reducing it's risk to "ShOuLd We AlSo bAn CoMpIlErS? WrItE iN aSeMbLy!!" is not a good sign that he is handling it well.
And he even compared it to using a fucking text editor to write commit messages, that wanting to limit AI use in commited code is the same as wanting to ban text editor usage. That's just plain insane misunderstanding of what the issues are.
You do that inherently when you are writing the code. Every line you write has already had that focus, because you had to come up with it.
That you should also not trust every line of the compiled assembly after you wrote the code, and check it lime by line, is an extremely stupid argument.
Of course, you should get someone else, with a fresh/unbiased opinion to review your code too, but just the act of figuring out every line you write is in some sense a rewiev, that there is at least a plan or reason why it was written.
AI just randomly generates code without thought or reason, and you have to check everything. Unlike assembly generated from code.
That's how I felt when I found MDMA, and it allowed me to find joy in parties and being around people. If used responsibly, of course.
I'm getting exactly the same feeling with AI now. It is instant dopamine fun, but I can see it being addicting in exactly the same way. Of course I tell myself I'll use it responsibly, for work, and keep my skills sharp by making sure to do some of my own projects, and be responsible in properly reviewing and checking my code.
Just as I told myself that I'll keep a healthy pause of two months between mdma use, and have a rogorous vitamine and supplements plans based on the most recommended harm reduction research.
Sure, I did manage to do that for the first half a year or so, you can guess how it is now.
It's pretty unsettling how exactly the same it feels, the way you slowly start giving up on things you've sworn to do, and how you slowly start to be unable to do/enjoy the thing (be it parties or coding) without it.
If it's the same study s few weeks ago, then no, or rather, the study isn't about that - it's comparing ex-smokers who quit cigarretes for good vs ex-smokers who switched to vapes.
There, vapes have higher lung cancer risk than not smoking at all, according to the study. Which isn't really surprising.
Lol, I could kind of understand (not really support) his use of AI. While I doubt it's something you can do for long without starting to make compromises, people who were a really good programmers before will probably use it responsibly for a while, until their skills inevitably erode and (more importantly) their willpower slowly runs out.
But this argument made me loose all my respect for him. It's so utterly stupid. I hate it when i have to check my assembly code line by line, because it's not guaranteed that the compiler will compile the same code I've written deterministically, and basically just randomizes what it outputs. Or when my editor does not save what I typed, and instead decides based on a random language statistics what to actually save, so I have to double-check my text word-by-word every time.
Oh, wait. No, because the tools are deterministic, and that doesn't happen. But of course, adding randomness into your workflow, where you have to focus and review everything line-by-line, is the same as using deterministic tools, lol.
I'd add to this that you can install stuff from package repositories, but only if you "layer" it onto your system, which I think slows up boot time, plus you have to re-boot for it.
Also, I highly recommend getting familiar with Distrobox. It can run even gui apps without issues, and is grate for whenever I need to install more stuff and just want to do the regular dnf install, i.e for dev environments.
It's fun to set up at the start, though.
Never really got further, though.
As someone who works in a studio that can afford unlimited AI bills, if you can afford to pay for 4-5B tokens per developer per month (that is the average monthly usage across our team for the past montha + CI) on latest models, it does a pretty good job and we can mostly commit fully AI authored code. Not one shots, it's rounds upon rounds of AI reviews, re-prompting to use a different system/make a change that sucks, but it works well.
Sure, the team is loosing project domain knowledge. The results are currently possible because most of us did spend few years working in the codebase before AI, so we can quickly spot an issue and point the prompt to a general direction, a space/system to use, or ask it to look into what part of the code. If we don't, it will duplicate random stuff and make it even more mess.
Of course, neither is worth it or sustainable. The cost is not reasonable in the slightest, my usage alone is more than my salary. Reviews are a bottleneck, and people have started to just run more rounds of AI on the PR, in adittion to the CI review loops and the authors review loops. It does help - each round usually catches something, but the cost, lol. And of course, we are slowly loosing both the abilitty to work without AI, and domain knowledge to be able to somehow rein in the code base.
So, if you have unlimited usage and can afford to run billions of tokens of looping reviews with the latest models, you can go fully AI pretty succesfully. But at the cost, and that is the pricing while AI companies are in the start-of-Uber phase, it's such a stupid idea.
I don't care about the job that much. I get to spend money (without trying to, to be exact - its just the only viable workflow) to make a point how stupid it is, while being able to do other stuff, so I don't really care, other than getting a course to requalify into another field after the studio burns.
But yeah, if you just ask claude to one-shot something, it sucks. It needs at least a few rounds of looping, clean slate review loops, or council decisions during the development. It would probably eat your Claude weekly limit just for one PR.
The point is - there is a huge difference in how people experience AI. If you can pull the slot machine lever more times, for an absurd cost, it will eventually get to passable results. The AI companies only see that, and from that PoV, yes, it is kinda passable. But there's like five companies in the world that can do that, and not for long.
Basically an inbox of Getting Things Done.
Yeah, I have several of those. Shit, I should take a look into the last one, it's been years since I last sorted it.