None of these articles explain what "vibecoding" is, and on general principles I refuse to look it up.

"Censorship is quietly deciding which games you can buy"

What an asinine sentence.

I can't imagine a better argument against using c. Isn't that the obvious, serious takeaway?

You can write similarly obscure code in any language. C is a particularly good language for it, but many of the entries use techniques that are broadly applicable to others.

> "Are you sure that anyone but the big boys want to make a browser in the EU?"

Surely that's the point - a collusive oligopoly making end runs around the "free market". Just look at all the other replies, rich with apologia.

"My brain seems to naturally work in cause->effect order"

You must be Jesus. Most brains observe events first and use that information to reason about their causes.

Ha. That for me actually seems to be impaired, which is why I had to do special education. These days I usually have enough of a knowledge base to build hypotheses for most situations, but it was far more difficult for me to reason about the cause of things that I had nothing else to relate to. Stuff like this is probably why autism tends to be treated like some sort of super learning impediment.

Anyway, I think about causes first when I am either performing actions or processing other performances of actions. It's one of the reasons why I can appear to be good at empathy to certain people, because I can usually nail down the exact reason for something far better than others can guess why it maybe could have happened. It's weird how that works sometimes.

"I think many speakers would still start with "He was hit by a ball", not "A ball hit him." We're not interested in assigning agency to the ball here, we're interested in the effects on the boy."

And you don't favor the shorter message?

I don’t think I would. But not willing to stage a real life experiment where I need to convey this information in an emergency to test my hypothesis.

"The main technique is keeping things simple."

Orwell also knew to avoid clichés, and lo, he made a much stronger argument for simplicity in his essays. "Keep it simple" means nothing by itself and Adams does not explain the concepts he hints at or even call them by their proper names.

None of the above would seem obnoxious had he actually cited Orwell.

I've not followed the literature very closely for some time - what problem are they trying to solve in the first place? They write "for documents to be effectively used in RAG pipelines, they must be split into smaller, semantically meaningful chunks". Segmenting each page by paragraphs doesn't seem like a particularly hard vision problem, nor do I see why an OCR system would need to incorporate an LLM (which seem more like a demonstration of overfitting than a "language model" in any literal sense, going by ChatGPT). Perhaps I'm just out of the loop.

Finally, I must point out that statements in the vein of "Why [product] 2.0 Changes Everything" are more often than not a load of humbug.

Large hard drives and fast internet do not render obsolete the principle of frequency domain compression. MP3 and JPG will probably remain in service for a very long time.

But of course, if people weren't habituated to this bogus conception of obsolescence, how on earth would Microsoft manage to sell them a word processor for $179.00?

They don't. You now subscribe to Copilot 365 or whatever the hell Office is called today for the low, low price of $12.99 per month for the rest of your life.

I'm sure that's also an option but I'm looking at their website right now and it says I can own this warmed-over text editor outright for 179$. What a bargain.