Changing how we develop Ladybird • Hacker News Board

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#571

Post by sodapopcan » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 5:00 PM UTC

jatora wrote: post #564

tejohnso wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human created music might have value to them, but it doesn't mean that the AI song was valueless. They admit they enjoyed it. So it doesn't make sense in terms of it not having value. I wouldn't say it's asinine though. People reject creative output out of personal protest against the creator. Someone might love a movie only to refuse to ever watch it again because they found out the director was accused of something…

True, asinine was too strong a critique. I am just not in favor of emotional decision making where it can be helped. I can despise Tom Cruise as a person while still enjoying many of his movies. I know that some can't do that. I have always detached the creators from the art and that makes AI slot right in for me.

It's not emotional when there is still always a person behind these "works" that stands top benefit from it from you listening to it.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#572

Post by matheusmoreira » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

InfiniteRand wrote: post #568

matheusmoreira wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no inherent value in producing a big lump of code I dunno. If that lump of code makes the program do things it wasn't doing before, I'd say there's a lot of value in it. We can definitely scrutinize the code's quality but there's no way anyone can argue with working code that makes the program better or more featureful than it was before.

Code that works but is unmaintainable is a burden on a project, that being said with open source, you can always fork the code, add your code, and let people decide

No doubt. The maintainability of the code should definitely be scrutinized and improved. Quality in general should be maximized.

Doesn't change the fact that working code does have value. If your program didn't do something before and it does now, that absolutely has value.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#573

Post by dcrazy » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 6:05 PM UTC

Marsymars wrote: post #567

6510 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Netherlands anyone may do the wiring of their house themselves but if it is a substantial modification (or an entire installation) a certified electrician has to sign off on it. They are not likely to stick their neck out for any funny business. That said, I've seen plenty of work from experienced certified electricians that was complete garbage. Not just a few things, more than half their work. Things like, t…

You've got romex in conduit? I'm not an electrician, just a DIY enthusiast (and the parent commenter) - but in North American construction, romex in conduit is basically unheard of in residential builds - it's stapled to the framing during construction, so once you cut wire short, you've immediately put yourself in a pickle.

I don’t think they implied Romex? Conduit is mandatory in multi-family construction here in San Francisco, but they just use armored cable, not romex in conduit.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#574

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 10:56 PM UTC

abirch wrote: post #268

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is entirely too much friction in the wrong place. Public open source will simply die before a system like that ever becomes the norm. The previous barriers worked because they were organically perfectly in line with a contributor's internal incentives. A contributor gains very little benefit from submitting a patch; the likelihood is infinitesimally small they'll ever get any career advancement, financial recomp…

I don't disagree, where is the right place for the friction?

[deleted]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#575

Post by rickydroll » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 3:57 AM UTC

Marsymars wrote: post #567

6510 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Netherlands anyone may do the wiring of their house themselves but if it is a substantial modification (or an entire installation) a certified electrician has to sign off on it. They are not likely to stick their neck out for any funny business. That said, I've seen plenty of work from experienced certified electricians that was complete garbage. Not just a few things, more than half their work. Things like, t…

You've got romex in conduit? I'm not an electrician, just a DIY enthusiast (and the parent commenter) - but in North American construction, romex in conduit is basically unheard of in residential builds - it's stapled to the framing during construction, so once you cut wire short, you've immediately put yourself in a pickle.

Here in the states, putting Romex in conduit is considered a code violation. You're supposed to use THHN wire in a conduit.

I wish professional electricians use pigtails and wago lever nuts instead of wire nuts. Working an old house, I've had to cut way too many wires almost too short just to add another neutral or ground.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#576

Post by Klonoar » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 7:03 AM UTC

RattlesnakeJake wrote: post #561

Klonoar wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In hindsight, the word "caste" is too heavily loaded and I should have chosen a different term. Sorry for the shit choice. It's not meant to be taken negatively, and is purely a term that I was choosing to represent "hey, you all need to consider better coordinating/representing/holding the line as a group".

"Guild" might have been a better choice :)

Noted! I'll keep it in mind, it's a great suggestion.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#577

Post by Klonoar » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 7:04 AM UTC

Chu4eeno wrote: post #555

Klonoar wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Glad you got your nut and do not care how it shakes out. I do care, it's why I commented what I commented. ;P I already acknowledged that "caste" is an incorrect word choice and I could've done better there, but my core point remains unchanged.

> I already acknowledged that "caste" is an incorrect word choice and I could've done better there, but my core point remains unchanged. Considering the reactions, it was a very amusing "mistake" to make (a bikeshedding lightning rod so to speak). Though I guess "caste" is a bit more sensitive in some cultures, which might explain why some commentators hyperfixate on that part of your comment.

There is no need for quotes around "mistake". ;P

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#578

Post by Klonoar » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 7:04 AM UTC

konart wrote: post #554

Klonoar wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fwiw, a non-technical employee in my workplace has begun submitting ai-generated prs to internal repos I maintain & they're of excellent quality, with review feedback graciously received & expediently addressed, so this isn't a matter of the idiots not being technical, it's an attitude problem. It is hard for me to imagine another engineering discipline that would be totally fine accepting work from those who don't…

>It is hard for me to imagine another engineering discipline ... engineering background required to do the work. Well, that would be because you don't really need to be a real engineer for what people call "software engineering". 50 years ago - maybe, 30 - maybe, but way less. But for the last 15 years at least - you don't really need a degree to build meaningfull software. Maybe you need it to build a new compiler o…

> we are not the same kind of engineers as people who build brindges or airplanes.

No shit. I'm arguing that we should be held to similar higher standards.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#579

Post by peterfirefly » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 1:27 PM UTC

konart wrote: post #554

Klonoar wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fwiw, a non-technical employee in my workplace has begun submitting ai-generated prs to internal repos I maintain & they're of excellent quality, with review feedback graciously received & expediently addressed, so this isn't a matter of the idiots not being technical, it's an attitude problem. It is hard for me to imagine another engineering discipline that would be totally fine accepting work from those who don't…

>It is hard for me to imagine another engineering discipline ... engineering background required to do the work. Well, that would be because you don't really need to be a real engineer for what people call "software engineering". 50 years ago - maybe, 30 - maybe, but way less. But for the last 15 years at least - you don't really need a degree to build meaningfull software. Maybe you need it to build a new compiler o…

Far longer. It was never needed. Skills were needed. How they were gained had no effect on what people could or couldn't do.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#580

Post by peterfirefly » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 1:28 PM UTC

Klonoar wrote: post #578

konart wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is hard for me to imagine another engineering discipline ... engineering background required to do the work. Well, that would be because you don't really need to be a real engineer for what people call "software engineering". 50 years ago - maybe, 30 - maybe, but way less. But for the last 15 years at least - you don't really need a degree to build meaningfull software. Maybe you need it to build a new compiler o…

> we are not the same kind of engineers as people who build brindges or airplanes. No shit. I'm arguing that we should be held to similar higher standards.

What if the degree doesn't really help with that?