It’s not nonsensical, implicit type coercion is a feature of JavaScript, it’s perfectly logical and predictable.
JavaScript is a filthy beast, it’s not the right tool for every job, but it’s not nonsensical.
When you follow a string with a +, it concatenates it with the next value (converted to string if needed). This makes sense, and it’s a very standard convention in most languages.
Applying arithmetic to a string would be nonsensical, which they don’t do.
If you don’t think centralized currency controlled by neo-liberal capitalist states isn’t a problem to solve, we aren’t even in the same plane here.
Just because it’s built on a block chain doesn’t mean they relinquished control and decentralized it. But it’s a platform that allows you to decentralize.
Is this worth it as an upgrade to our existing centrally controlled currency? That’s a different discussion.
Does it solve the problem blockchain provides a solution for? Does it allow for decentralization? It appears the answer is no.
There’s a difference between saying “the secure enclave holds the biometric data securely and locally in a verifiable way with no mechanism to retrieve the actual data” and “trust them, don’t worry about it”
It’s okay to be wrong.
They are overlapping areas, but they are “two completely different things”. They overlap by sharing common goals, not by being interchangeable.
Anonymity to me means the message recipient can’t tell who you are.
Right. And Signal doesn’t provide that at all, it ties your private messages to your identity (phone number), it explicitly does not provide anonymity. In fact, it proudly advertises you as a signal user to other signal users that have your number saved. It allows you to post public status updates, it encourages you to save your first and last name on your account.
If a THIRD PARTY (the server operator) can ALSO tell who you are, that’s a privacy failure, not just an anonymity one.
Okay? And? In this hypothetical world where Signal offered anonymity but still tied you to your number for other practical reasons, then you’re be correct that it would be a privacy concern.
But they don’t offer anonymity, they offer private conversations.
Real world development isn’t creating exciting apps all the time, it’s writing the same exact boring convention based code sticking to an established pattern.
It can be really boring and unchallenging to create your millionth respiratory, or you can prompt your ide to create a new repo and with one sentence it will create stub out 10 minutes worth of tedious prep work. It makes programming fun again.
In one prompt, it can look at my finished code and stub out half decent documentation that otherwise wouldn’t have been completed at. It does hallucinate sometimes, or it completely misunderstands the code, so you have to correct a few sentences, but the brain drain of coming to with the sentence structure to write useful documentation is completely lifted, and the code is now well documented.
AI programming is more than just vibe coding, and it’s way more useful than everyone here insists it’s not.
Non of those examples are relevant.
Those examples are specific tools or specific implementation pattern, AI in development is a tool.
It doesn’t dictate how to write software or what the written code will look like, it’s a tool that speeds up your code wiring. It catches typos and silly bugs that take hours to debug, it’s able to generate useful unit tests, it can clean up and apply my code style way better than codemaid or resharper ever code, it’s taken care of so much tedious shit and made software development fun again.
Vibe coding is not the future of development. If you aren’t learning to use AI as a tool in development, you are going to be left behind.
It’s more apt to compare it to IDEs. Sure, you can still write you entire app in vim and compile it in the terminal, but you would have been very foolish to deny the future of development was in IDEs.
Sure. And you’re entitled to yours. But words have meaning and this isn’t MY OPINION, it’s objective reality. It follows strict rules for predictable output, it is not nonsensical.
You’re entitled to think it’s nonsense, and you’d be wrong. You don’t have to like implicit type coercion, but it’s popular and in many languages for good reason…
'5' - 1 → 4'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6$(( '5' + 1 )) → 6"5" + 1 → 6"5" + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 54(ASCII math)'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' - 1 → 4"5" + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' - 1 → 4'5' - 1 → 4"5" + 1 → 6(5) 1 add → 6I think JavaScript is filthy, I’m at home with C#, but I understand and don’t fear ITC.