it also said to have "different ages for different services" so the fact you have a debit/credit card to pay is more than enough to prove you at least 16.
this will be interesting to watch i just wish i weren't caught in the net.
That's never been true in the UK? You don't have to be 16 to get a debit card, and having one isn't proof of any age. (For example, Barclays gave me my first debit card when I was 13, many years ago.)
After I have wrote a feature and I’m in the ironing out bug stage this is where I like the agents do a lot of the grunt work, I don’t want to write jsdocs, or fix this lint issue.
I have also started it in writing tests.
I will write the first test the “good path” it can copy this and tweak the inputs to trigger all the branches far faster than I can.
I was using the OpenCode free model defaults. This was a test setup, so I didn't configure anything - toadbox just installs toad, which then lets me install and run OpenCode without any configuration.
Edit: digging around in a fresh container the default model I'm getting is `big-pickle`, and I have to assume that this is the one that decided to use that proxy.
LLMs also try and find short cuts to get the task done, for example I wrote some code (typescript) for work that had a lot of lint errors (I created a pretty strict rule set)
And I asked codex to fix them for me, first attempt was to add comments to disable the rules for the whole file and just mark everything as any.
Second attempt was to disable the rules in the eslint config.
It does the same with tests it will happily create a work around to avoid the issue rather than fix the issue.
The problem is that “clear”, “modular”, “well designed” and all pretty abstract ideas.
I personally like builder style when doing oop new Client().withTimeOut().ignoreHttpErrors()
Not everyone would consider that clean when using it in your code base.
And let’s face it all code has hacks and patches just to get it out before the deadline then there are more things to do so it will just stay that way.
That might be true. But unclear, non-modular, and poorly designed is actually much easier to identify.
I don't know if I like the builder style; I could go either way. But if I saw that, I'd still consider that clear and well designed. But I've seen some truly ugly code from both people and AI.
But same is true about "good food": some people will prefer some specific food and someone "good food" may not be the taste of someone else.
And yet, it would be ridiculous to pretend that we cannot say that there is an advantage in avoiding cooking a dish made with dirt and toxic waste. The fact that we cannot define an absolute objective "good food" is not at all a problem.
this will be interesting to watch i just wish i weren't caught in the net.
reply