I've had a number of occasions where claude (et al.) have incorrectly carried out a task involving existing code (e.g. create a widget for foo, following bar's example). In these cases the way I would have done it would be to copy said existing code and then modify the copied code. I've always wondered if they should just be using copy tool (even just using xclip) instead of using context.
My main terminal uses a PiHole with 120,000+ blacklist rules (not Cloudfare specifically — I allow most CDN's). This includes an entire blackout of Google/Facebook products, as well as most tracking/analytics services.
For example, I do not allow reCAPTCHA.
As a similar commentor noted, when just casually browsing I don't really have any desire to try hard to read random content. Should I absolutely need to access some information garden-walled behind Cloudfare: I have another computer that uses much less restrictive black-listing.
Not OP but it isn't super extreme if you are just surfing, it's like if the site is slow to load sometimes I wasn't that invested to use your site anyway
How many civil engineers or architects know how to put up scaffolding or lay bricks?
That was a little tongue in cheek, but I am genuinely curious what you think the correct approach is? I have seen many teams that do need to have someone overseeing the overall architecture, even if that person isn't writing the code line-by-line.
If you have that capacity baked into "Backend Programmer", then great, but not every team is the same.
Is there something inherently wrong with an "architect" who hasn't written code in a decade but is instructing seniors? One might believe that the answer is self-evident, however, I would argue that the organisational structures we see in the world (functional or otherwise) do not bear this out.
reply