Except that as a developer you have access to the original source code where things are well structured. It only turns into div soup after the React/Vue code gets compiled down to HTML+CSS+JS that can run on any browser.
Magnus' longevity has more to do with his willingness to continue competing than his actual skill. He's been pretty vocal about his issues with FIDE so I can see a world where he stops participating in FIDE events to focus on non-FIDE events that he enjoys more. He's already withdrawn from the Candidates which qualifies you for the World Championship.
Magnus not participating in FIDE events seems to have absolutely nothing to do with his longevity, it just means that FIDE is no longer meaningfully hosting THE world championship because they failed to attract the talent.
Yeah if FIDE crowns some other champ without Magnus people wont think oh wow Magnus lost the spot, people will think oh wow FIDE lost the spot of being the kingmaker. chess.com is probably the more credible org for global rankings anyway
You know that he already has stopped participating in the world championship organized by FIDE, right? The current 'world champion' is Gukesh Dommaraju, who took it from Ding Liren the year before, but of course Magnus would probably still be the world champion if he kept competing for it.
I think the point the poster was making, is that there is an asterisk beside Gukesh and Liren's world champ status. Nobody really thinks they're the actual world-champ, regardless of what FIDE says. FIDE failed to attract the best player, to even play.
By the same logic, why would anyone expect that the best player in the world for any given sport happens to compete in the olympics? The issue here is the semantics. FIDE titling someone "world champion" is at the end of the day no different than a burger joint claiming to be the best in the country after winning some competition or another.
To be clear, I don't mean to take issue with the competitions themselves.
Magnus obviously has the will to compete, he competes all the time.
Elite sporting events are absolutely obliged to chase talent, just like any other business is. If they don't, they quickly stop being the elite sporting event. There's a reason why athletes are paid so well...
To give you an idea of the scale, OpenClaw is probably one of the biggest developments in open source AI tools in the last couple of months. And given the pace of AI, that's a big deal.
In what context are you using the word "development?"
Letta (MemGPT) has been around for years and frameworks like Mastra have been getting serious Enterprise attention for most of 2025. Memory + Tasks is not novel or new.
Is it out of the box nature that's the 'biggest' development? Am I missing something else?
Not OP, but it was revolutionary in the same way that ChatGPT and Deepseek the app+webapp was because it packaged capabilities in a fairly easy-to-use manner that could be used by both technical and non-technical decisionmakers.
If you can provide any sort of tool that can reduce mundane work for a decisionmaker with a title of Director and above, it can be extremely powerful.
> removing the suggestions form entirely, because it results in exactly this level of expectation
I think the expectation is less about the suggestions form and more because of the tagline "a place to find good blogs that interest you". If the tagline was clearer that these were hand curated, then I think no one would care about the process you currently have.
There's always some friction between implicit assumptions of reader and writer. I assumed they were hand curated. I've never seen algorithmic selection produce the kind of variety I see on there.
Because Google has the money to build 10 different versions/iterations of Gemini and can essentially force one to work. They have most people's data and most people use them for mail/search/browser/maps as well.
In my opinion though this is a race to the bottom rather than a winner takes all situation so I don't think anyone is coming out ahead once the dust settles.
Does it matter? Microsoft won by default with Teams because it actually turns out no one cares about chat or even has a choice in it: employees use whatever the company picks.
If you're going to say "other than the US" then you've got to say at a minimum "other than the US and China", but really "other than the US and China and Japan and Korea and Taiwan and Thailand and Russia and most of Central Asia".
Only mentioning the US is wildly americentric even by HN standards.
The tech behind wave eventually made its way into Google docs though and pioneered collaborative document editing, so wasn't a complete failure even though the product itself was killed.
No comment on Google+, Google has a storied history of failure on any kind of social media/chat type products.
Where Google wins is just simply having enough money to outlive anyone else. As the saying goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" In this case, Google is the market and they can just keep throwing money at the wall until OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. go under.
Then wouldn't open source models running on commodity hardware be the best way to get around that? I think one of the greatest wins of the 21st century is that almost every human today has more computing power than the entire US government in the 1950s. More computer power has democratized access and ability to disperse information. There are tons of downsides to that which we're dealing with but on the net, I think it's positive.
Not sure where you're getting this from, but the latest MacOS works on devices from 2019 so it's at least 6 years of support. And homebrew supports versions from macOS 14 fully (and some support up to 10.15) which means full support for 2018 devices and potentially even devices from 2012 will work.
If you think of building software as just writing the code then sure AI makes things a lot easier. But if software engineering also includes security, setting up and maintaining infrastructure, choosing the right tradeoffs, understanding how to deal with evolving requirements without ballooning code complexity, etc., then AI struggles with that at the moment.
With infra-as-code, an LLM can also set up and maintain infra. Security is another issue and 100% that still seems to be the biggest footgun with agentic software development, but honestly that is mostly just a prompting/context issue. You can definitely get an LLM to write secure code, it is just arguably not any model's "default".
The problem is not if the LLM writes secure code. The problem is if you can know and understand that the code is reasonably secure. And that requires pretty deep understanding of the program and that understanding is (for most people) built by developing the program.
I am not sure how it's for others byt for me it's a lot harder to read chunk of code to understand and verify it than to take the problem head on with code and then maybe consult it using LLM.
I think the industry is going to end up with exceptional software engineers organizing and managing many average coding assistants. The problem is the vast majority of us are not exceptional software engineers (obviously).
So I don't think it's going to be executed at the absolute peak. But it does imply that the finance people in ASML believe that the stock is undervalued even if the market as a whole is at all time highs.
Human comments tend to be short and sweet like "nit: rename creatorOfWidgets to widgetFactory". Whereas AI code review comments are long winded not as precise. So even if there are 20 humans comments, I can easily see which are important and which aren't.
We are using BitBucket at work and decided to turn on RovoDev as reviewer. It absolutely doesn’t do that. Few but relevant comments are the norm and when we don’t like something it says we tell it in its instructions file to stop doing that. It has been working great!
My coworker is so far on this spectrum it's a problem. He writes sentences with half the words missing making it actually difficult to understand what he is trying to suggest.
All of the non critical words in english aren't useless bloat, they remove ambiguity and act as a kind of error correction if something is wrong.
Yes, but I don't know how effective it is. 99% of the time someone leaves a 'nit' the other person fixes it. So we're still dealing with most of them like regular comments. Only once or twice I've been like "nah, I like my way better" but I can only do that if they also leave an LGTM. Sometimes they do. There's one or two people that will hold your code hostage until you reply to every little nit. At that point they don't feel like nits. I always LGTM if the code is functionally correct or if the build breaks in a trivial way (that would also block them from submitting). Then they can address my nits or submit anyway and I'm cool with that.
I wonder if there's a psychological benefit though. If someone states up front that they know something is just a nitpick, the author might be less likely to push back, and therefore it's less likely to end up in a bike shedding back-and-forth.
This and when an author wants to ignore it, they do. You don't need to justify your choice since the person is openly saying "I'm bikeshedding" to you.
> There's one or two people that will hold your code hostage until you reply to every little nit. At that point they don't feel like nits.
If the comment must be addressed before the review is approved, then it is not a nit, it is a blocker (a "changes required"). Blockers should not be marked as nits — nor vice versa.
I agree that prefixing comments with "Nit:" (or vice versa in extreme cases "This is a big one:") is psychologically useful. Yet another reason it's useful is that it's not uncommon for perceived importance to vary over time: you start with "hmm, this could be named blah" and a week later you've convinced yourself it's a blocker — so, force yourself to recognize that it was originally phrased as a nit, and force yourself to come back and say explicitly "I've changed my mind: I think this is important." With or without the "nit/blocker" prefixing pattern, the reviewer may come off as capricious; but with the pattern, he's at least measurably capricious.
It may feels to many. I mostly use suggestion, thought, and todo. When I type down "nit..." I realized it usually does not worth it. I'd rather make comment about higher level of the changes.
reply