It's 1 million LoC they merged in a week. And that's only the final state. It's going to be much, much more if you include changes in individual commits. 6,755 commits were pushed to the PR branch, including dozens that were made shortly before the branch was merged to main. There's not a chance that anyone has read the code in any significant portion, or even in the future, because people who review code don't merge to main before they do so.
> There's not a chance that anyone has read the code in any significant portion
Sure, but that wasn't really the question, the question was why it's obvious no-one or no-thing have closely reviewed the code? Given they use LLMs to produce the code, wouldn't surprise me if they used LLMs to review it too, and I don't see it as unfeasible to be able to review a lot of code on a lot shorter timeframe.
It's not like they're doing something unique or novel, they even had an implementation in another language they knew did the right thing, so all the review would have to do, would be to make sure it's the same in the new language.
Don't get me wrong, again, probably there is plenty of mistakes in there, and might catch on fire when run in the wrong way, but I still don't think it's obvious how they've done things, unless you have insights into their process which seems clear to me now that you don't.
> They obviously haven't closely reviewed the code. That's the point
You asked why.
If Bun’s maintainers truly reviewed it, they would've had to read at least 6k lines per hour for a full week without a break. No one can claim in good faith that could possibly have happened.
Bun is now a black box consisting of million lines of largely unread code. No amount of "you don't know the whole story" lawyering or endless demands for "proof" of the obvious will change that.
The scope of the issue goes far deeper than "there might be some mistakes." Because what happened with the rewrite isn't engineering. Engineering applies the scientific method and rigorous verification to real world problems. It surely isn't about trusting a digital genie's "guarantees" that "all is fine." All aspects of LLM output is undefined behavior, and Bun blindly accepted million lines of code generated from it.
Before anyone brings it up again, tests aren't a sufficient defense. They only catch a tiny subset of the infinite possible failures. Modern software development still depends on developers understanding the code they produce.
For Omada devices, you need a "Controller". You can run the Omada Controller software on an existing computer, get one of their controller devices, or use their cloud-based service, which should be free at your scale.
I’m pretty happy with my Omada controlled EAPs around my house.
Running Omada on my Windows Server was painful (doesn’t really run properly as a service, software updates are a chore), but since I moved it to run on Proxmox using a super simple LXC image (I maybe got terminology wrong here) it’s been very nice.
Supposedly I should have excellent roaming between the APs, but I’m not sure how to check. Certainly, walking from one end of the house the other while on a Teams or WhatsApp call on my phone has maybe only a super minimal amount of time that I might not hear the other person (sub second for sure, if at all), but mostly I don’t notice.
He's not denying that there is demand, he just has a different view on what's happening:
When developers say that LLMs make them more productive, you need to keep in mind that this is what they’re automating: dysfunction, tampering as a design strategy, superstition-driven coding, and software whose quality genuinely doesn’t matter, all in an environment where rigour is completely absent.
They are right. LLMs make work that doesn’t matter easier – it’s all monopolies, subscriptions, VCs, and lock-in anyway – in an industry that doesn’t care, where the only thing that’s measured is some bullshit productivity measure that’s completely disconnected from outcomes.
...
One group thinks this will make the world ten times richer. The other thinks it’ll be a catastrophe.
Reasonable conclusion, if you think the entire software industry is rotten then accelerating rot won't do much
I personally disagree with that worldview. (I read the article and the guy's tone is lowkey salty)
The reality is it's insanely hard to convince people (/especially/ consumers. //especially// technical consumers) to pay up to use software. Anyone who has tried to sell software as a startup knows, customers are laser focused on outcomes and value and anything that raises an eyebrow means you're toast
Ofc there are perverse incentives and I think those are bad
I wonder if this is a sign of bad value. Long ago you'd be willing to pay. The relationship was clearer , simpler, stabler. No sudden change of price or rules, no constant false improvement. It was less flexible, and riskier on a way, but it cleaned the noise.
I mean software as a customer/user is by and large completely miserable anymore.
People don't like spending money on yet another Solution that will screw them over then shut down, screwing them over again regarding whatever they were using it for. Look at the reactions and expectations when Beloved Name gets bought by private equity, or how people count down the days until Useful Service starts enshittification and becomes terrible.
People have been trained to leapfrog from service to service while watching for signs of rot because nobody makes software or has long-term plans that actually care about the customer's long-term well being anymore. If Founder McSynergy can make an extra dollar by throwing the entire userbase into a volcano, well, that's just a sacrifice he's willing to make.
> The reality is it's insanely hard to convince people (/especially/ consumers. //especially// technical consumers) to pay up to use software.
The industry is in an extremely bimodal situation, which drives most of that rot.
You have the startups and small businesses who can't get businesses or customers to pay up. And you have the SaaS giants, who already have their customers and can charge whatever they want.
And this is where the "rotten software industry" and doubts about AI feasibility intersect: Both of these business archetypes lack a clear use case for AI.
If you're small, congratulations you can now spend thousands a month on tokens and still have $0 of revenue. AI doesn't really help you "catch up" to customer expectations as now you're also having to compete with the myriad of slop-shops and in-house AI software development.
If you're a giant, well... why bother? Why give OpenAI or Anthropic a million dollars in tokens? They don't need to make the software better nor do need any "AI efficiency" to do layoffs.
I'm curious as to where your perspective comes from.
My view is they both have a clear use case for AI, because every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap. Enterprises big and small already shell out billions upon billions for AI so I'm not sure how your premise holds
In fact AI has resulted in more startups than ever starting to take market share from the incumbent software companies (and the market has started to price that in)
> because every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap.
This is the part I would contest.
Obviously there's some disagreement about how much AI is actually meaningfully intelligent for any given task, but even outside of that:
Turning "intelligence" or staff skill into revenue is not automatic or trivial. You can hire the smartest process engineer on the planet, but if your assembly line has no major inefficiencies, they just can't do anything. They can build you a 2nd assembly line but if there's not the market demand to buy that much product, it's pointless.
For software development: "More code" does not really translate into "more revenue".
If you are a SaaS giant, you don't need "More code". You're not in the business of doing software development. You're in the business of rent seeking. No need to replace people with AI, you can just fire them and replace them with nobody.
And if you're a small firm, code isn't your USP. Everyone has code. Good god especially now with AI, every dumbass' startup can have a trillion lines of code. As has oft been observed (long before AI), the code is a liability. There's not really much efficiency to be had by using AI, because the devs are already minimally writing code.
they're quite generally intelligent, and you can leverage them in nearly every business function. marketing, sales, ops, research etc. which basically every business needs
clearly we still need humans running companies for the intangibles but im saying the premise doesn't hold up under the market reality
Every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap, but it is abundantly clear that LLMs are not in any way intelligent. They still frequently make egregious errors in what they do, because they are just token predictors with no intelligence or understanding of what they are doing. Yes, even the state of the art frontier models. This in turn means you have to either baby sit them, or accept a much higher rate of failures than a human would produce. Either option kills any potential productivity gains.
> My view is they both have a clear use case for AI, because every business has a use case for more intelligence on tap.
They all do, but for small companies it won't be a benefit, it will be table stakes. It will also not increase revenue for them, it will reduce it because more competitors will be introduced, and customers won't be able to easily differentiate the true slop from the expert-guided and curated slop. The only alternative will be to become more of a slop shop, i.e. replace expensive programmers with cheaper AI, lowering your quality. Or to shut down.
For big companies who have always had terrible quality that didn't matter at all to their bottom line, of course it's a good investment. They can fire programmers. Do buybacks.
So when the tub of ice cream decreases in size from 64 ounces to 60, 56, 52, and finally 48 ounces while the price stays the same (or even goes up), then:
That's not necessarily shrinkflation; that might instead be a result of having learned that consumers didn't need so much ice cream.
There's nothing "finally" about 48 oz. Some brands are edging smaller. What I've noticed is 32oz. cartons gaining prominence in grocery stores, while the 48's seem to be slowly getting phased out.
It is true that their packages don't shrink. There's one in a nearby city that I'm very familiar with.
But at those kinds of quantities, their prices are 50% more than the higher-end store brand at the store that's near my house. The hand-packed treatment then literally doubles that price. We're now at 300% cost and we haven't factored travel expense yet.
Besides, if I kept their ice cream at home, then I think that would tend to lessen my enjoyment of sitting down and enjoying a proper sundae at their shop -- and that's not something I wish to ever diminish in any way. :)
> Find a locally owned ice cream parlor, and asked for a hand-packed half gallon.
I could be wrong, but I'd bet that my local ice cream parlours would decline that request - unless you can show that you're e.g. a restaurant and can commit to a certain order frequency, they're just going to tell you to buy as many 19oz "pints" as you need for $40/4. (A discount over $12/each.)
Man. The old-school ice cream place I grew up with is happy to sell bulk ice cream, in any quantity, in single-unit volumes ranging from a pint to up to 3 gallons. (The prices for this are on the website, and also on the wall behind the counter in the shop, though I'm sure that negotiation is possible for particularly large orders.)
They're even happy to package it with dry ice and ship it internationally. They've offered this service for as long as I've been aware of the world around me (several decades, so far).
They make the ice cream in-house just as they have always done, and they offer these services to anybody.
And while this ice cream place that I'm familiar with certainly does charge plenty, I've got to ask: What's wrong with your own ice cream place, my dude?
> I've got to ask: What's wrong with your own ice cream place, my dude?
So you got me curious enough to try to call up my three local ice cream places.
Spot 1: No phone number on either Google Maps or their website.
Spot 2: This was the spot I had in mind with my previous comment - indeed, they do not sell by any quantity larger than 473ml pints (I typo'd previous comment - 16oz, not 19oz pints.)
Spot 3: Happy to report that they will sell by the 3 gal bucket (or half bucket) for $150/$75, respectively.
re: Spot #2 and your "what's wrong with" question - this is a trendy place that opened about a decade ago, and I expect they're just not interested in taking lower margins or complicating their offerings - it's simply "take it or leave it" on their pints.
If this were true, they could have learned it at any time before now.
When the changes are done precisely during a time of huge increases in the prices of all kinds of memory devices, it is hard to believe that this is a random coincidence.
Or (for some of them) they could have previously been chasing the stupid spec numbers for advertising and realized they can save money if they just stop doing that.
See Apple as an example, who really doesn't care about telling you the newest phone has 12GB of ram. It's literally not even mentioned on the tech specs page.
It depends on how much caffeine is in your cup. Rather than measuring the size of a cup, I would go by the amount of coffee, as in the weight of the beans, used to brew it. The actual amount of caffeine is not as easy to measure, and even for the same kind of beans, there is natural variation.
For a traditional Italian espresso, about 7g of coffee beans are extracted. For a third-wave double espresso, it's usually 18g or more.
In my opinion, 10x7g is a lot. 2x12g is more than enough for me.
caffeine extraction is largely a function of time in contact with water. Espresso is quite quick brew, so has less caffeine than other brewing methods (yes, there are plenty of other factors)
Rather than measuring the size of a cup, I would go by the amount of coffee, as in the weight of the beans, used to brew it.
I feel this is more precise than the ml cup measuremnts, but if you wanted to be really precise, you'd have to specify the type of beans used (the caffeine content varies widely) and even the brewing method https://oldchicagocoffee.com/coffee-bean-caffeine-content-by....
And - there is an influence - even in the region the beans are grown. In the link I provided they even go so far as to differentiate as to genetics of the beans.
There is no realistic scenario where, no matter your extractions or bean selections, 6-10 shots of espresso a day is not an enormous amount of caffeine
A grande americano at Starbucks is a 16 oz drink with three shots of espresso. Have one in the morning and one in the afternoon and you are at six shots of espresso. That doesn't seem all that enormous to me.
It was a slight attempt to highlight that the conversation about a purely subjective thing is missing the point entirely. In the context of scientific discovery trying to qualify the outcome based on an individual's personal interpretation of descriptive words is a fool's errand. Attempting to justify one's personal habits or predilections is squarely in the flat earther camp of scientific belief.
reply