Does homebrew still do that insane thing when you want to upgrade a single package it tell you "hold my beer" and starts installing postgres and some obscure python version?

This behaviour came about because, before we did that we ended up upgrading just what you wanted and breaking other packages by mistake.

It’s taken a long time but we’re finally at the point where we do (pretty much) only upgrade the minimal software we need to actually avoid breakage rather than the previous “better safe than sorry” conservative approach. We also now tell you by default everything we’ll upgrade before we do it (unless you say “upgrade foo” and all we are gonna do is upgrade foo).

So: we’ve maybe solved this issue and maybe not. The perfect outcomes for everyone here is pretty much impossible given the original design of Homebrew. MacPorts or Nix or Mise are likely a better fit in that case.

Are you referring how it does a `brew upgrade` when doing a `brew install`? It should tell you how to disable that whenever it happens:

> Adjust how often this is run with `$HOMEBREW_AUTO_UPDATE_SECS` or disable with

> `$HOMEBREW_NO_AUTO_UPDATE=1`. Hide these hints with `$HOMEBREW_NO_ENV_HINTS=1` (see `man brew`).

Why is this not the default? I removed homebrew years ago, because it was just full of nasty surprises like this. Does homebrew still share dependencies? Previously you could not have package A with a transitive dependency of lib-X = v1.2 and B that requires lib-X = v.0.7.

Any english links?

You can change language from the top right-most dropdown, and select English

Top right corner

Nice! Did fable generate that animation? Looks crisp

It was unclear to me, is this a native replacement for docker? I like docker (on mac) but its quite the resource hog.

I usually run like a db, redis, maybe something like rabbitmq/zeromq and have a app that uses these services (makefile/docker-compose).

I would love to switch if this in fact is a lightweight replacement.

On the one hand yes, on the other hand there are already multiple lighter alternatives to docker on mac.

A native replacement for docker came last year with Apple Containers- this extends that.

Github is fine. It just has serious issues with the huge amount of traffic.

I bet they will sort it out, and is most likely a top priority.

People seem to miss entirely that this is not (only) some slop code that makes github go down, but its the fact that they get 100x the number of requests since AI tools came to the devs daily workflow.

That, but also AI tools have made github req/res go up by 100x. There is simply too muvh AI generated traffic.

I k ow for a fact that ANY other platform would fail faster than github if they had the same volume of http requests.

This is relevant to my interests, did you maybe test which models handle custom languages best? It also seems like a good proxy for them being able to stick to important instructions and not being carried away with things that are lookalikes.

Its kind of sad that the first thing in the repo is a mention that no human was involved in the programming.

As others here have already mentioned, it doesn't work all that well either, proving that AI can't replace humans completely.

Total "Damn if I do, damn if I don't" situation . I put a similar disclaimer on my AI stuff too. It would be much easier if they didn't mention it. But if they're like me, they want to give people the means for an informed decision. We can respect that and move on. Do we even know if actual big software companies aren't doing it?

"LLMs are amazing, I'm so much more productive now"

"oh yeah? Show me what you made, you can't, nobody can, it's all just AI psychosis"

"I made a pixel perfect Office document viewer"

"well... I wish you hadn't"

“If you use LLMs, you’re not a real developer, you’re lazy.”

The best developers are lazy.

Would author be able to do it otherwise? Is particular tool choice making result worse?

Bit identical/pixel-faithful reproductions are easy to verify…

> Is particular tool choice making result worse?

Well, yes, because it doesn't work.

> Bit identical/pixel-faithful reproductions are easy to verify…

And yet the prompter put so little effort in they couldn't even verify the software they prompted for does what it's supposed to.

Why do you say it doesn't work? It seems to work fine for the feature parity they claim.

For “pixel-faithful” documents it doesn’t seem to be replicating documents all too well based on the many other testimonies in these comments

>doesn’t seem to be replicating documents all too well based on the many other testimonies in these comments

Ironic, that you are agreeing with a post saying they put in little effort for the implementation when you have put in absolutely no effort in saying that it doesn't produce pixel-faithful documents, such as producing a single concrete example.

I'm fine with that, even as someone who hates AI.

Would this project exist otherwise? i doubt it

This is REALLY GOOD news for every passive investor. They try to game the system with this one, big time. There should be hearings about this, and new laws need to put in place to prevent something like this.