If someone can drop a file in your ~/bin, they can also edit your shell’s startup files to add their malicious command.

> I don't know what the current standalone price is because we use Apple One Family, however, it used to cost $5/mo.

They raised it a while back to $7/month.

It’s a concept design, not a product you can buy.

Yep, I want to see HN's take on if its a good or bad design

Whether it’s good or bad depends on if it works, and to know that it needs to be built.

I think a few things can be inferred from a design alone

> The end result isn't useful

Then, as your parent comment asked, is there value in it? $20K, which is more than the yearly minimum wage in several countries in Europe, was spent recreating a worse version of something we already have, just to see if it was possible, using a system which increases inequality and makes climate change—which is causing people to die—worse.

If you spend a decade working on something, you’re not “hacking it”.

Yes, of course. These exist because they work. If no one fell for these scams, they wouldn’t continue to exist.

It’s not. A miracle is “an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural or preternatural cause”. Could we please stop trivialising and ignoring the meaning of words?

The word miracle itself is hyperbolic in nature...it's meant to enchant and not to be used literal or concretely.

No need to be pedantic here, there is a large cohort of the population that seemingly never thought a robot would be able to write usable code ("inexplicable by natural or scientific laws") and now here we are seeing that happen ("hey this must be preternatural! there is no other explanation")

> We don't call architects 'vibe architects' even though (…)

> We don't call builders 'vibe builders' for (…)

> When was the last time (…)

None of those are the same thing. At all. They are still all deterministic approaches. The architect’s library of things doesn’t change every time they use it or present different things depending on how they hold it. It’s useful because it’s predictable. Same for all your other examples.

If we want to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of LLM-generated code, proponents need to stop being dishonest in their comparisons. They also need to stop plugging their ears and not ignore the other issues around the technology. It is possible to have something which is useful but whose advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.

I think the word predictable is doing a bit of heavy lifting there.

Lets say you shovel some dirt, you’ve got a lot of control over where you get it from and where you put it..

Now get in your big digger’s cabin and try to have the same precision. At the level of a shovel-user, you are unpredictable even if you’re skilled. Some of your work might be out a decent fraction of the width of a shovel. That’d never happen if you did it the precise way!

But you have a ton more leverage. And that’s the game-changer.

That’s another dishonest comparison. Predictability is not the same as precision. You don’t need to be millimetric when shovelling dirt at a construction site. But you do need to do it when conducting brain surgery. Context matters.

Sure. If you’re racing your runway to go from 0 to 100 users you’d reach for a different set of tools than if you’re contributing to postgres.

In other words I agree completely with you but these new tools open up new possibilities. We have historically not had super-shovels so we’ve had to shovel all the things no matter how giant or important they are.

> these new tools open up new possibilities.

I’m not disputing that. What I’m criticising is the argument from my original parent post of comparing it to things which are fundamentally different, but making it look equivalent as a justification against criticism.

For shoelaces, go Ian Knot and forget about the rest.

https://www.animatedknots.com/shoelace-bow-knot-fieggen-meth...

https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ianknot.htm

It’s a great knot to get other people interested, too, because you can go “alright, so first you start in this position like any other knot, right? Then you just zwoop and done”. Tying your laces in a single fast movement really makes your nerd friends curious. It’s like a magic trick.

I, too, am a fan of the Ian’s Knot site and for at least a couple of decades. A while ago I noticed that he has posted a page through which people can donate to the site’s operation but also which details all of the income sources that have dried up.

I donated today because his site is worth supporting.

For clarification: it's the same knot (square knot), just a different way of creating it.

Is it? From the animatedknots link:

> The difference is that the loops are NOT stacked under each other ... The loops are passed inside each other

I feel like the way we discuss knots is way too clumsy considering how old and important the topic is.

How do we live in a world that has something as successful as regex, yet we don't have similar for knots?

Yes it is - look at the end result.

The "not stacked ..." part compares it to the clove hitch, which is another knot entirely.

The Ian's Secure Knot is what I've used for years and the only shoelace knot my kids were taught. Trivial modification of the usual bunny ears and hardly ever comes undone.

Ian's knot site was here just recently. (5 days ago)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46848231

And in those days you had affordances which no longer exist, such as AA Call Boxes on the side of the road. If you get into an accident today, you are expected to have a phone to call for help. That can literally be the difference between life or death, jamming communications can cause people to die.