As someone who pair programmed 8 hours a day for 10+ years, it’s important to note that there is an ebb and flow. Sometimes we were collaborating fully. Sometimes one of us got up to make coffee and looked at Instagram on their phone for 20 minutes while the other tried to get tests to pass. Then we reunited and caught each other up. It’s easy to dwell on the intense part of pairing, but it’s just as important to purposefully acknowledge your humanity and expect to take real actual breaks and go sit in a comfy chair and zone out for a short while or go to a doctor appointment or chat up another person at the water cooler for a bit.
8 hours a day pairing means that pairing is the default, but it’s not the only thing that ever happens.
also: 8 hours/day pairing meant 16 hours/day not working at all in my case. Really really really not working. Not checking Slack. Not trying out some crazy idea. Not working at all.
TLDR implies you didn’t read - therefore you don’t know if it’s slop.
But seriously it does read well like normal thoughtful human writing, so I am on the side of it not being “AI slop” while also noting that you didn’t claim it was.
"And here's the key bit...", etc. I agree there's a few signs that this was at least editorialized by AI. That being said, saying it's slop is a bit of a stretch.
The editor treats edits from Claude Code as a first class citizen. You can easily review, approve, rollback, etc. Claude's changes in a curated experience that is much faster than digging around in diffs or needing to approve each edit as it is proposed.
i open my nvim on a socket and tell calude code cli about it.
my claude.md has a line "look for lsp errors when you are done editing" so it communicates with neovim on the socket and gets whatever it needs from editor.
Yea, having tried claude code a lot over the last couple months reviewing code is the #1 job in my view. Any tool that helps you do that more quickly and easily is essential to guarding from slop slip through. What a world heh.
It would depend on where you are pinging from and if they have anything closer to you to respond.
From where I am, google averages 4ms, yahoo is at 200ms+. Obviously because they dont have the money or marketshare to bother putting anything for me to route closer too.
Same experiment from my gigabit link in Silicon Valley. Looks like Yahoo is about 3 times slower but far more consistent
--- google.com ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 6.918/23.419/294.037/62.272 ms
--- yahoo.com ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 78.056/78.940/80.940/0.811 ms
Although what's interesting is that Yahoo is really more like 10 times slower (almost every ping was in the 6-8ms range), it's just that there was just that one packet at 300ms and other at 30ms that really blew out the average.
Isn’t it because you can generate the same content two different times and hash it and come to the same ETag value?
Using UUID here wouldn’t help here because you don’t want different identifiers for the same
content. Time-based UUID versions would negate the point of ETag, and otherwise if you use UUIDv8 and simply put a hash value in there, all you’re doing is reducing the bit depth of the hash and changing its formatting, for limited benefit.
I would assume that you would only create a new UUID if the content of the tagged file changed serverside.
Benefits are readability and reduced amount of data to be transferee. UUID is reasonably save to be unique for the ETag use case (I think 64 bits actually would be enough).
The point of the content hash is to make it trivial to verify that the content hasn’t changed from when its hash was made. If you just make a uuid that has nothing to do with the file’s contents, you could easily forget to update the UUID when you do change its content, leading to invalid caches (or generate a new UUID even though the content hasn’t changed, leading to wasteful invalidation.)
Having the filename be a simple hash of the content guarantees that you don’t make the mistakes above, and makes it trivial to verify.
For example, if my css files are compiled from a build script, and a caching proxy sits in front of my web server, I can set content-hashed files to infinite lifetime on the caching proxy and not worry about invalidating anything. Even if I clean my build output and rebuild, if the resulting css file is identical, it will get the same hash again, automatically. If I used UUID’s and blew away my output folder and rebuilt, suddenly all files have new UUID’s even though their contents are identical, which is wasteful.
SHA256 has the benefit that you can generate the ETAG deterministically without needing to maintain a database (i.e. content-based hashing). That way you also don’t need to track if the content changes which reduces bugs that might creep in with UUIDs. Also, if typically you only update a subset of all files, then aside from not needing to keep track of assigned UUIDs per file, you can do a partial update. Reasons to do content-based hashing are not invalidated because of a new UUID format.
reply