Functions might sound scary, but in reality they're used already in CSS processors like SASS/SCSS - and then they actually reduce complexity of the code.

The example with linear-gradient is probably the best use case for them.

How they are “objectively bad”?

Range Rovers are extremely unreliable, and maybe more importantly, not suited for what they're being used for. Offroad vehicle with poor fuel economy being driven in the city. X5 is more reasonable but still definitely an expensive way to get around.

I was hoping for something more than myths and cliches.

X5 - despite its bad reputation - is actually very reliable nowadays. That B58 engine is one hell of a robust machine. And Range Rovers have 4 to 5 year manufacturer warranties.

Also, they're not off-road vehicles (Wranglers, Defenders and Broncos are); they're family cars that combine practicality with great driving dynamics, advanced tech, and a touch of luxury. Also, both have PHEVs, and now even BEVs variants.

I'm not a SUV guy myself, I know their bad sides - but calling these two models "objectively bad" is both ignorant, and patronising. Objectively (as in: let's take a bunch of cars and compare them to each other) they're two of the best ones out there.

This is what I've been told for years, and still the prejudice against Range Rovers has proven better than the "facts." There's no objective way to say what's unreliable, I'll agree there.

And even if this all magically changed in the past couple of years, the old reputation applies to all the ones people bought before, going back to the other person's original point that a large number of people buy cars based on looks. Also the ones that aren't off-roaders are a niche in their lineup.

Range Rover 4x4 is for when you have leaves on the estate driveway in autumn, or when you need to take the hounds grousing by the lake on weekends.

I don't thing anyone is _actually_ taking their range rover offroading in any "real" way.

- Expensive to repair to maintain. - Notoriously unreliable. - Expensive running costs, not fuel efficient.

>Working class people still choose best bang/range for the buck car since their car is a tool, not a fashion statement

I was responding to this statement here.

They’re usually around the bottom of the reliability rankings.

Not going to happen. Most of the race tracks on the F1 calendar have noise limits nowadays. Yes, the classics - like Monza - included.

It looks like it will be mild-hybrid V8s with turbos from 2030: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/first-details-of-2030-f1-...

Regarding the first linked article: wouldn't it be the same with no AI in sight? I suppose most people, when they'd stumbled upon a blog written by "a senior technology journalist at the BBC", would believe in the sausage eating championship too.

To be clear: I totally agree that manipulating LLMs is super-dangerous. I don't think it is a 20 minutes of work, though. It's more like "years of building credibility, and then 20 minutes of work".

The point of the article is not that banners are good; it’s that they would not be needed at all if websites didn’t share all the possible data about their users with hundreds of vendors.

Fun fact: the OP blog doesn’t display a GPDR banner.

But did it do anything? I get fingerprinted anyway. I'm geolocated anyway.

I'm a "deny all cookies" if it's an option, but I won't waste time on "customize".

Reminds me of 9/11 security theater

The responses about code quality, wisdom that comes with experience, etc. are missing the big picture: no one will ever care about any of this as long as things work as explained in the prompt.

Eventual shortcomings will be fixed not by looking into the code, but by typing in another prompt, asking another agent.

Doing it manually will not bring any value to anyone.

I saw it already with my own eyes: a friend of mine started an online psychology counseling site. A year ago they would hire a developer. Now, he only needed an LLM. And it’s the whole thing: a booking system, video calls, a website. What’s underneath: he doesn’t know. The only thing that matters to him is that it works.

That to me looks like the end of programming.

Can he trust it's secure? Does what about when something goes wrong. Ops issues might come into play and just handing AI agent ssh keys could cause all sorts of issues. Only time will tell though I guess.

> Eventual shortcomings will be fixed not by looking into the code, but by typing in another prompt, asking another agent.

So, you'll rely on the tech that created buggy code to somehow suddenly create bug-free code?

Isn’t it the same as relying on human developers?

Gotchas aside: I’m not saying the end of programming is a good thing. I’m just saying: it’s happening. Unless the LLM tech will suddenly hit any sort of ceiling.

Different. You have a wide choice of good human developers.