We used to understand that code was harder to read than it is to write. It follows, directly, that better engineering discipline means shipping LESS code. Less to support, less to understand, means a product that is easier to maintain and extend.
Now, token calculators spew out code at a pace no human can match, which completely removes the barrier of effort - which was one of the largest natural counters to shipping massive amounts of slop.
I'll be impressed by a coding model when it writes less code than a human, and spends more time refactoring than it does just adding new layers. Until then, this vibecoding is just madness.
If the docs are vibecoded too that would explain why there's a link to the compromised "not official" cursor version of the extension here https://code.claude.com/docs/en/vs-code which they supposedly aren't responsible for.
It sure seems like they've been vibecoding with everyone asleep at the wheel for a while.
If you look at job listings right now, there's a ton of "we apply an LLM to your business use case" type startups that really don't have good products or fundamentals, but that are getting a lot of funding because "AI".
They use LLMs, often have flashy demos, but can't keep things aligned and struggle to keep the models on task. E.g. they have burned a ton of capital and don't have a lot to show for it.
The ones that went all-in on vibe coding are even worse off.
If those startups die, the big inference providers lose a lot of customers.
> The Minnesota 15 are not accused of ordinary protest. The article gave no evidence that these people hadn't committed any crimes it just went on and on about investigative capabilities of HSI.
Actually, the way the criminal justice system works here in America is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's not the job of the newspaper to exonerate the victims of government overreach.
You're right, it's not but that wasn't what I was asking. If they are going to claim that ICE is targeting left wing movements and then use the Minnesota 15 as an example, I would want to hear about this case. If the Minnesota 15 performed only constitutionally protected speech then this investigation might be concerning but the article didn't really describe that. Could ICE have collected evidence illegally? Yes, that can be decided in a court. I am just a layman but if it turns out that the Minnesota 15 were doing things like blocking law enforcement vehicles or throwing ice blocks, that doesn't seem like constitutionally protected speech anymore. Apparently some of them were charged with such offenses. So that might weigh on whether I thought ICE was "cracking down on left-wing social movements".
Do you think the only way to enforce civil infractions, like immigration violations, is by raiding an apartment building by helicopter at 1 AM?
Do you think the appropriate way to handle people SUSPECTED of having an expired visa is by throwing them in an overseas prison without trial?
Do you think it's RIGHT to throw pregnant women into a prison camp and deny them medical care, just because something was filled out wrong on their immigration paperwork?
I assure you, it is perfectly possible to enforce border and immigration policies without engaging in wanton cruelty or violations of civil rights.
Here's some advice for future debates: drop the petty whataboutisms, quit making strawmen to attack, and address the actual criticisms.
If there’s no immigration enforcement, that’s functionally equivalent to having open borders. It’s kind of what an open border is. Where is the false equivalency?
If you go back and read the comment you are responding to, you will see this text:
> I assure you, it is perfectly possible to enforce border and immigration policies without engaging in wanton cruelty or violations of civil rights.
The false equivalence, then, is right here:
> If there’s no immigration enforcement, that’s functionally equivalent to having open borders.
Where you again just skip over the enumerated criticisms and pretend that all border enforcement must be done in such an aggressive and violent manner without regard for constitutionally guaranteed rights.
If you don't want to acknowledge the difference between "enforce immigration law in a civil and reasonable manner" and "terrorize neighborhoods and execute citizens to make a point", then I can't help you.
Abolishing a criminal organization and jailing the unqualified thugs who have spent the last 2 years terrorizing and murdering citizens in the street does not mean "quit enforcing immigration".
ICE was created in 2002 as part of the notorious Homeland Security Act. Do you think immigration law was just... not enforced before that?
Hint: Immigration law was previously handled by an agency called the Immigration and Naturalization Service, with customs enforcement being handled by US Customs. ICE has shown complete disregard for the Constitution, a common issue with the agencies created by the Homeland Security Act.
Dismantling ICE does not mean stopping border enforcement. It means decentralizing that power and devolving immigration enforcement to agencies better equipped to handle it while protecting the rights of American Citizens.
Literally none of them, but it won't matter to the "both sides" types or the right wingers because it's about their feelings not about the facts of what actually happened during COVID or how many people the TEMPORARY restrictions saved.
After the crap they pulled in the latest Brazilian election, there is no reason to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. They are obviously and intentionally trying to use their extreme influence over online communities to influence elections.
Watch for more fuckery during the current US election season.
People give away our planet and our souls to Facebook since decades now. Everyone knew someone who was uncomfortable with that and who asked whether a little less Facebook wouldn't be more healthy. These ones got ignored.
So, well, I don't like fascists. But if Facebook now makes use of the fact that you gave our world to them, it's hard to blame them for that.
People failed in that regard. Not Facebook. They succeeded. People failed.
The DOJ has thousands of lawyers, almost all of whom are are the most ideological kind of democrats.[1] Law is a very specialized field that attracts a very narrow, highly unrepresentative slice of the population. Normally this is fine because the DOJ’s work doesn’t have much of a political valance.
[1] Every DOJ person I know is a great lawyer, phenomenal at their job, and the most upstanding, orderly, conscientious type of American. But they can’t be trusted with that much power over politics. It’s like how you can’t give the One Ring to Gandalf. You have to give it to the Hobbits.
You can’t give such an ideologically homogenous group of people that much power over elections and candidates. People can’t be trusted to put aside their personal beliefs and value systems and act objectively.
You’re getting closer with juries. But the DC jury pool is extremely skewed. Its like Aragorn trying to get a fair trial in Mordor District Court.
> can’t give such an ideologically homogenous group of people that much power over elections and candidates
Agree. We also can’t tolerate the level of blatant corruption we have now.
The solution is something more flexible than we have now, but still with a high bar. The check is the courts. America didn’t fall apart when Bob Menendez went to jail.
> People can’t be trusted to put aside their personal beliefs and value systems and act objectively
We don’t need them to. Prosecutorial discretion means anyone can charged with anything. The test is whether it sticks. (The FBI already has, and has already abused, the powers you’re concerned about.)
Nobody is suggesting prosecutors be allowed to unilaterally jail politicians. If we trust voters to mind misconduct in office we should be able to trust them to read through charges.
> Agree. We also can’t tolerate the level of blatant corruption we have now.
Your proposal would replace petty corruption with institutional capture of elections by the legal profession. That’s a solution worse than the problem.
> If we trust voters to mind misconduct in office we should be able to trust them to read through charges.
You can’t trust a jury of 12 people in a handpicked jurisdiction, where evidence is carefully screened by lawyers and judges, to make such consequential decisions for the whole country.
> Your proposal would replace petty corruption with institutional capture of elections by the legal profession
“Make corruption cases easier to bring” is “institutional capture of elections”? What?
> You can’t trust a jury of 12 people in a handpicked jurisdiction
If your only issue is with the jury pool, don’t give DC special jurisdiction. A Senator from Montana should be tried there.
It also seems like you’ve forgotten about appeals.
> to make such consequential decisions for the whole country
We have an election system that’s corrupted by social media, money and the electoral college. That means smaller groups of unaccountable people already make consequential decisions for the whole country.
The folks on January 6th were idiots. But they believed they were saving their republic. A lot more people, today, believe we’re at a precipice of losing it due to corruption.
So yeah, if not a jury it could be something more extreme. (At a certain point, not today but not la-la land, it needs to be.) A state or district electing corrupt fuckwits endangers us all—the folks pushing for decertifying elections for shits and giggles set the precedent for this anyway.
> You can’t trust a jury of 12 people in a handpicked jurisdiction, where evidence is carefully screened by lawyers and judges, to make such consequential decisions for the whole country.
Then it sounds like you need to amend the Constitution. Because that's how our system works. You are indicted by a grand jury in the jurisdiction in which you are accused of a crime and then you are put in front of a petit jury. Both sides agree on who the jury is.
I'm struggling to understand the alternative system you're imagining.
Do we need DOJ to balance between every ideology in order to exist?
We need 50/50 Republicans and Democrats
50/50 Commies and Fascists
50/50 Totalitarians and Anarchists
50/50 Pro-lifers and pro-choicers
50/50 gun fanatics and gun haters
50/50 Dog people and cat people
50/50 People who like asparagus and people who don't
What exactly are you proposing here?
I have a simple proposal: competent people can apply for the job, and so long as they execute their duties without prejudice, they get to keep the job. It's really that simple!
There’s nothing inherently wrong with “idealogical homogeneity”. Antisocial beliefs are not owed any representation. And frankly I’d much prefer my politicians to associate on the basis of ideology rather than class or familial connection.
As expected, you ignore the actual complaint and just draw specious comparisons, making unsubstantiated claims that "most" of the people at the DoJ are totally democrats, trust me dude.
The comparison was between the current “DOJ” and the Texas AG’s Office. Not just the guy in charge, the whole agency. No matter who you put in charge, an agency of 10,000 lawyers who are overwhelmingly democrats is going to be very different in terms of partisan behavior than the Texas AG’s office.
As to the political makeup at DOJ, information about political donations at federal agencies is public.
>> The DoJ is literally run by trump’s personal lawyer. <<
> As to the political makeup at DOJ, information about political donations at federal agencies is public.
I'm sure many of the rank-and-file at the DOJ DO donate to democrats these days, after all the republican party has demonstrated rank criminality across the last ~ 15 years, which is only getting worse. Anyone at the DOJ who still cares about criminal justice and the rule of law is going to likely support the only remaining party that isn't bending the knee to criminals and con men.
It still doesn't change my original criticism - that the DOJ is run by Trump's personal lawyer - and it doesn't make your whataboutism suddenly relevant.
You focus on providing something that isn't broken. It's really that simple.
reply