The dark flows and Loss Disguised as a Win felt quite relatable. I've had 3 days in a row at work where I've vibe coded heavily with Opus 4.5 and was flowing and felt super productive and almost manic.

At the end of every one of those days when I went for a walk with my dog I realized "hold on, I don't need all that crap that it generated" and immediately thought of solutions that required a 10th of the code mass.

I've wasted hours on refining something that was crap. Maybe I needed to do that to discover the simple solutions, maybe it was a skills issue. But I was deep in the dark flow and the amount of code I generated definitely felt like a slot machine rewarding me for losing (time).

In this interview from last year he talks about using uemacs still and how it doesn't have syntax highlighting: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BHmyxsIdOHQ

If it did then I’m very impressed because the demanding more snacks thing was fantastic

It could be a combination of some manual tweaks to a generated article.

That doesn't sound like how I understand over-fitting, but I'm intrigued! How do you mean?

But more importantly, he is not one of those people he writes about. He sets up an ideal that he doesn’t live up to.

He’s an author and journalist, not a doer of any kind as far as I can tell from his bio.

Thanks, just placed a hold on that book at my library!

Nice, I hope you get a lot out of it! I found much of his thinking familiar in isolation, but appreciated how he put it all together under the umbrella of burnout. It changed my perspective substantially and opened my mind quite a bit regarding how I treat myself.

541 views, on an 8 years old video. How many of those are you responsible for? Anyway I put it on my watch later list, thanks!

I found this refreshing after catching myself overthinking stuff lately. I want to reclaim the joy of coding in 2025.

‘it’ is a welcome addition!

Truly is, much nicer than that lonely `_1`

I'd have thought allowing _ as a synonym for _1 would have been more aesthetically consistent. That's the path I went with when designing my CL #λ reader macro, personally.

_2 can be as bad as _1

I don't understand the point of it when the `.map(&:upcase)` syntax is shorter. This just seems like yet another syntactic sugar Rubyism that doesn't really add anything.

If it's an alternative to the `|x|` syntax when using only one block variable, then I like that.

`arr.map { it.thing.blah.stuff }`

The `&:` doesn't work in that context

Not to point any fingers, but shows that the previous commenter have not struggled with this :)

&: is very nice, but not enough.

That only works when calling a method on the things you’re iterating thru, it is a replacement for the single variable block example you gave there

Don't say that word!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvsGdJP3ng

Does `it` conflict with Rspec's `it`? Surely they've thought of this, but to my eye it looks like it would get confusing.

Nope it doesn’t, they did take that into account during development.