There’s no architectural limitation in Git preventing you from replicating that exact setup for another decade, though.

I don't know about anyone else, but anybody who goes into a "1970s library" (I don't know what that is, but I guess it means a good old-fashioned library with like, books) and complains about the lack of 3D printers or that their obscure animated series catalog isn't wide enough would embody the definition of an uninteresting person to me.

> The average citizen seems to be fairly poorly informed that taxes on the rich have fallen really dramatically in the past 40 years.

There's an observation.

> but you can actually wield a vibe coding tool with skill. There's nothing stopping you from looking at the code

It’s hard to give something like “vibe coding” a rigid definition, but I think we can all agree that it’s inversely correlated with "looking at the code". The more I examine the code while building, the less the activity is about vibes.

So, used this way, it's true that it's not a McDouble anymore, but it's also not so much of a vibecoding tool anymore either.

I think babysitting the AI would be a better term than vibe coding. At work they call it "AI assisted engineering" and "synthetic coworkers"

Do not try this at homes that belong to other people.

How do I pay them, do they need my money, would it help ffmpeg?

I like the idea that Mr. Amodei holds these beliefs because he wants to safeguard democracy as much as the next guy.

I just don’t find it believable.

Being a for-profit company does not automatically give you a free pass to do anything in the name of profit and claim immunity if your actions harm certain people. Individuals can (and will) expose and condemn for-profits for policies they believe cause them harm in order to attach some semblance of accountability to a corporation that would otherwise completely ignore their interests. This is effectively a way of exerting some form of voting power over the decision-making algorithm of the profit-driven body. And something that might make an entity solely focused on profit reconsider running over the concerns of those affected, precisely because they made taking that route less profitable for it. This is not only perfectly legitimate, it is also one of the most powerful ways for consumers to challenge plutocratic forces.

> Being a for-profit company does not automatically give you a free pass to do anything in the name of profit and claim immunity

Okay but that's not what were talking about. We're talking about Meta following the rules specified by the government of a country in which they operate. They don't need immunity to follow the rules.

He's just awesome.