qustio

7 ms·

1.
by qustio 3mo ago
Sorry, I didn't feel like this thread needed to be dragged out any longer since it's going in circles at this point and expanded my comment, but I didn't realize you had already replied.
2.
by qustio 3mo ago
To be clear my original statement was that the bottleneck was most likely not mechanical code changes (where CC would have the most direct speedup) but everything else involved in the process (testing, discussion/approval, inclination
3.
by qustio 3mo ago
Not sure why you'd refuse to believe that when a single, simple patch in Linux can take months to make it into a kernel release. Here we're looking at 300 patches scattered throughout a kernel with millions of LoC. That's goi
4.
by qustio 3mo ago
Huh, are you confusing me with someone else? I don't doubt Claude Code did that, I do the same for refactors all the time. But xscreensaver theme tweaks for personal use have a much lower standard for quality control, regression testin
5.
by qustio 3mo ago
I don't think the bottleneck was that it took six years to Ctrl-F strncpy and type in new code for each file.
6.
by qustio 3mo ago
It's entirely reasonable to ask for the underlying research in response to a blog post hyping up an unproven claim in an area notoriously full of amateurs making the same claim that historically fail to stand up to scrutiny. Particular
7.
by qustio 3mo ago
But the entire corpus for Linear A is tiny, you could backfill a "translation" that has no actual similarity with the real language when properly tested against novel examples. How was this tested?