Of course not. Normal people are using gemini, it comes pre-installed on Android now.

This is the answer for gen pop. Gemini is going to mop up the floor on most use cases as its ingrained in google search.

I don't see how that particular line of thinking applies when: 1) They continue to have a free version for Windows 2) They continue to have a version for Linux

I just can't see that cost of having a free Linux version (on top having a paid Linux version) is big?

I literally explained the thinking that the free builds on Linux aren't worth it. If you've ever shipped production software, you'd know this. Just because there's a free build available for Windows doesn't mean it costs the company $0 to release the free build. It's a lot of extra time and QA for each variant of a release. There might be many differences between the Windows and Linux builds, such as the Linux builds require proprietary 3rd party code with royalties, and they chose not to eat that cost.

There's no bait and switch. It's just people expecting things for free, as always, when this was never an open source project.

> It's a lot of extra time and QA for each variant of a release.

In Vivado, it's the same release for the free and expensive builds on both Linux and Windows. It's just a question of the installed license file/license limits.

> such as the Linux builds require proprietary 3rd party code with royalties, and they chose not to eat that cost.

This seems unlikely for a multitude of reasons.

This ignores that their revenue comes from selling chips. The software enables that. No software, no chip sales. This can only have a negative impact on their sales.

Xilinx is/was an FPGA company until AMD bought them. Their primary revenue stream is selling chips. This is the equivalent of going back to the days of paid C/C++ compilers (anybody else remember that?).

Again that reasoning falls apart because they offer free Windows version. So basically those academic/small companies are incentivised to switch to Windows (or use Wine/Proton) to use this software?

And that's aside the fact that if support cases are the actual issue - they could (and probably already do that) just not allow free users to open/submit bug/support cases.

Eh, the supply of drivers isn't as fungible as you might think. Insurance is quite expensive, that's what keeps me from doing it from time to time. That and I have zero desire to have to deal with the public.

They spent billions and billions on trying to make self-driving a thing.

So they burnt money and have nothing to show for it? Why do we let these companies play around with billions of dollars while we lack universal childcare or medicare for all?

Complete looney toons over here if you think this is at all acceptable. I bet the workers would figure out a better use of the budget than the executives at this rate too.

LLMs are amazing at golang. They seem to have great training in the k8s world, so writing custom controllers and operators takes minutes instead of days now.

That describes social media for the last 10 years, at least. Not dead yet.

They are nowhere near solved. Agents make serious mistakes in judgment and do it frequently enough to threaten the viability of the codebase unless you slow down and monitor them very, very closely. If you do that, it's all good. If you're not, your codebase is rotting at a superhuman speed underneath you and you have no idea until it collapses.

I agree they make mistakes in judgement, that's the whole point of plan mode. That judgement comes to the surface before lots of tokens are wasted without sight of the overall solution.

It's all very simple. "Use x library, data model should be xyz, do m, not n."

They're obviously not at the point of replacing an experienced programmer as far as knowing the start-to-finish way of accomplishing every detail, that's what the human is for.

You’re not even engaging with what they said, just repeating your theory like it’s fact. And it was, like a year ago. You do you, though.

Plan mode improves results, but it doesn't solve the underlying problems. Pretty often Claude Opus 4.7 on xhigh will formulate a reasonable enough plan, churn for a while, then come back with a summary that it didn't stick to the plan because it wasn't accurate.

Worse, the disclaimer is buried under a bunch of "did X, did Y on line Z of file a/b/c", as if it's just a minor inconvenience. To the extent the plan was inaccurate, you're left in an undefined state where you might as well undo what it just did..

You have to review the plan and fill in any missing gaps or correct anything that's wrong. Plan mode often isn't one shot, it might take a few iterations, but once the plan is nailed down, the results are usually very good.

You're right. I think having it spawn lots of subagents, read everything, formulate a big and detailed plan, only for it to be subtly wrong while requiring me to carefully review the result and the intermediate plans that produced it is quite tiring. I suppose things slip through.

If you understand these subtle pieces you perceive the AI to get wrong, you should include that in your prompt. Also, unit test and functional test coverage go a long way to ensure correct behavior.

I could also include the correct implementation for it to copy in the prompt, if you get what I'm trying to say. Some amount of laziness or vagueness in the prompt is an intended use case, it's surely the point of having the subagents do so much churning of tokens to research before writing the plan that I'm about to disregard. But sure, those are helpful tips.

I admire your perseverance, but in mid-2026, I think you’re wasting your breath. The engineers who are virulently anti-AI like this, without being able to engage honestly about the pros and cons, are being driven by their fear and insecurity.

How am I being virulently anti-AI? I've been a Claude Code max subscriber for many months and find it very helpful. It feels a little unfair to conclude that any criticism is just unfounded fear and insecurity..

Ostensibly, there may be a third party that benefits from the exchange, rather than the two exchanging ideas.

It is surprising to see how many are still in utter denial around here, though. Maybe we should all go back to punch cards.

Good lock with that denial it's surely must be due to anything but the super obvious thing that science is warning us about and all data points to.

this ^^^^ not to mention modern fertilizers

You're not missing anything. There's legions of amateurs that dislike k8s because they don't understand the value.

Why not just create a WoW-like game that doesn't infringe on the IP? Surely there are enough people following the project that at some point, they could have pivoted into a wholly unique IP.