I fundamentally cannot agree with that take. How do you fix something if you don’t know why the current thing doesn’t work?

Is the interface obtuse?

Are the controls too manually complex to operate?

Is the tutorial instruction flat-out wrong?

Are they talking out off their ass about something they heard on hearsay?

Were they taught secondhand, and poorly, by someone else on how to operate Thing?

Please don’t try to imprecisely apply soft inclusivity to technical problems. If someone only says the stairs are difficult for them, don’t just change them into a slide because you accepted there needs to be change. This isn’t about accomodating someone’s lifestyle choices, this is (positing) dropping/adopting a standard based on vague dissent.

The philosophy is pretty straight-forward. I don’t know why the world is pretending it’s difficult.

“My dad knows a guy” is a connection?

I don’t love the cat. We’re housemates.

I don’t smell the cat’s breath because we’re not close like that. I’d appreciate it if you stayed away from my cat as well.

This feels like a shitpost that idiots misappropriated as a real method.

Why would you want a method based on a famously developmentally-challenged child? It isn’t “dogged perserverance despite setbacks”; it’s “he’s literally too stupid to evaluate his process and teach himself a better way to solve even the simplest tasks.”

CLOSED: not a bug

Read the images top-to-bottom, left-to-right.

They used a shortcut to call the LLM to fix an error. The final “fix” was for the model to add a comment after the error saying “this is the error”. It’s about at the level of a real developer leaving a comment to themself saying “FIXME [later]”, instead of just fixing it.

This should be taken as evidence they’ve been training off the entire internet.

Fourth panel should just be him dead. I’d have already pulled my hand out

Sure, maybe in the same way that the Ford Model T-500 is a solution to the problem of automobiles.

Pornhub is a car from the 201Xs. And most other media players are varyingly from 1960 and 2025, i.e. out-of-date and over-engineered.

This is a great advertisment for what real developers do. You shouldn’t just crank out the first idea that works. You should be doing something that is smarter and sensible.

Beep?

The rocks ain’t magic, dingus. The rocks are just a cipherstone to let us teach lightning how to count to 2 and do addition.

Rubes diminishing the achievements of hardworking artificiers.

Hell yeah, I made these errors myself. Homegrown.

I feel like it’s missing the setup of the dev complaining about why their architecture is a mess. Seems like a “management is ruining software” joke.

But…it’s canceled, not rescheduled for a different time that day. You just have free time. I don’t understand how that affects other timing.

Then give them some code and tell them to explain it. Having testees regurgitate algorithm implementations from memory is just testing rote memory.

I thought we had all lived through terrible public schools that just tested memory, and resolved to do better.

I just had someone send me a link to that when I asked a question. Infuriating.

I’m confused by this comment. “The original is even better” reads like you are informing TO about the original. But you’d expect them to be aware of it, what with them referencing the joke nickname and saying “a new variation”.

It’s mostly confusing because there are clearer ways of posting the original comic for the uninformed than referencing the only person certain to have seen it.