> any time someone says something is post-$thing it means what they are doing is in dialogue with and in response to $thing. “we were doing that before $thing” no, you can’t be in dialogue with something that hasn’t happened yet.
> this is like saying “what do you mean post-modernist architecture, architecture predates modernism”.
I've never done this because i haven't felt compelled to do this because I want to review my own code but I imagine this works okay and isn't hard to set up by asking Claude to set this up for you...
What? People do this all the time. Sometimes manually by invoking another agent with a different model and asking it to review the changes against the original spec. I just setup some reviewer / verifier sub agents in Cursor that I can invoke with a slash command. I use Opus 4.5 as my daily driver, but I have reviewer subagents running Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5.2-codex and they each review the plan as well, and then the final implementation against the plan. Both sometimes identify issues, and Opus then integrates that feedback.
It’s not perfect so I still review the code myself, but it helps decrease the number of defects I have to then have the AI correct.
That's called `\e[0;92m`, aka the ANSI terminal espace sequence for bright green. You have 15 others, that will be displayed however the terminal's user wants. They're already available in most terminal color libraries, too.
> Linux is free, but you pay for it with your time.
People like to repeat this thought terminating cliché because they think it makes them sound smart and insightful, to doubt that a free thing is really free. But it's an uniquely naive opinion.
On Windows or MacOS, it's more often than not that, when you meet a problem, the only thing you can do is throw your hands into the air, and suffer the problem. This is paying with your time. Every single time you have to sit and wait through a forced update, this is paying with your time, in the realest sense of the word. You give your time for continued use of the product, and nothing else.
What people mean with the idiotic folk-wisdom is that you spend lots of time with the internals of Linux.
That's not true, but let's assume it is. The internals of Linux are likely a thing you'll really want to learn in depth if you're professionally into any computers science related job, because the market has settled on that.
If you're not, it's also something you'll want to learn, because Linux's design makes a single skill you learnt applicable in a lot of different workflows. So stuff you learnt while troubleshooting, you may adapt in other situations.
You don't pay with your time, you invest your time. Like all investments, it has an initial cost and dividends. It's a pretty good investment.
The days of compiling kernel module to have your adsl modem working or copy/pasting modelines in an xfree86config files have been over for well over 15 years anyway.
You don't fiddle more in Linux than you do in MacOs or Windows nowadays and that screen recorder tool he had to spend time vibecoding is embedded in the desktop already, the rest of the apps are 2 clicks away from being installed.
Exactly. But it is hilarious that, in the only OS where investing your time in learning something that will almost always be useful in other ways (as opposed to spending your time submitting to a quagmire of bugs), this is described as a "spending".
It's more complex than that. The three pillars of learning are theory (finding out about the thing), practice (doing the thing) and metacognition (being right, or more importantly, wrong. And correcting yourself.). Each of those steps reinforce neural pathways. They're all essential in some form or another.
Literacy, books, saving your knowledge somewhere else removes the burden of remembering everything in your head. But they don't come into effect into any of those processes. So it's an immensely bad metaphor. A more apt one is the GPS, that only leaves you with practice.
That's where LLMs come in, and obliterate every single one of those pillars on any mental skill. You never have to learn a thing deeply, because it's doing the knowing for you. You never have to practice, because the LLM does all the writing for you. And of course, when it's wrong, you're not wrong. So nothing you learn.
There are ways to exploit LLMs to make your brain grow, instead of shrink. You could make them into personalized teachers, catering to each student at their own rhythm. Make them give you problems, instead of ready-made solutions. Only employ them for tasks you already know how to make perfectly. Don't depend on them.
But this isn't the future OpenAI or Anthropic are gonna gift us. Not today, and not in a hundred years, because it's always gonna be more profitable to run a sycophant.
If we want LLMs to be the "better" instead of the "worse", we'll have to fight for it.
Yes, I wrote this comment under someone else's comment before, but it seems to apply to yours even better.
What money do you think pays for most of the development of the Linux kernel? I assure you, it is not the altruistic goodwill of people around the world.
How do you think did development of Linux work for the first many years until corporations saw the value Linux is providing? (and developers demanded they use their favorite operating system)
reply