I think some form of ads made it into the release channel. I recently did a clean install of Windows 11 25H2 and I could not figure out how to get App Store ads out of the search results in the start menu. That and a game working better on Linux than Windows was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me and I installed Ubuntu.
Agreed. If the author did not bother to write, much less read, their work, why should we spend time reading it?
In the past a large codebase indicated that maybe you might take the project serious, as some human effort was expended in its creation. There were still some outliers like Urbit and it's 144 KLOC of Hoon code, perverse loobeans and all.
Now if I get so much as a whiff of AI scent of a project, I lot all interest. It indicates that the author did not a modicum of their own time in the project, so therefore I should waste my own time on it.
(I use LLM-based coding tools in some of my projects, but I have the self-respect to review the generated code before publishing init.)
I’ve come to appreciate that there is a new totally valid (imo) kind of software development one can do now where you simply do not read the code at all. I do this when prototyping things with vibe coding for example for personal use, and I’ve posted at least one such project on GitHub for others who may want to run the code.
Of course as a developer you still have to take responsibility for your code, minimally including a disclaimer, and not dumping this code in to someone else’s code base. For example at work when submitting MRs I do generally read the code and keep MRs concise.
I’ve found that there is a certain kind of coder that hears of someone not reading the code and this sounds like some kind of moral violation to them. It’s not. It’s some weird new kind of coding where I’m more creating a detailed description of the functionality I want and incrementally refining it and iterating on it by describing in text how I want it to change. For example I use it to write GUI programs for Ubuntu using GTK and python. I’m not familiar with python-gtk library syntax or GTK GUI methods so there’s not really much of a point in reading the code - I ask the machine to write that precisely because I’m unfamiliar with it. When I need to verify things I have to come up with ways for the machine to test the code on its own.
Point is I think it’s honestly one new legitimate way of using these tools, with a lot of caveats around how such generated code can be responsibly used. If someone vibe coded something and didn’t read it and I’m worried it contains something dangerous, I can ask Claude to analyze it and then run it in a docker container. I treat the code the same way the author does - as a slightly unknown pile of functions which seem to perform a function but may need further verification.
I’m not sure what this means for the software world. On the face of it it seems like it’s probably some kind of problem, but I think at the same time we will find durable use cases for this new mode of interacting with code. Much the same as when compilers abstracted away the assembly code.
> I’ve come to appreciate that there is a new totally valid (imo) kind of software development one can do now where you simply do not read the code at all
No. If nobody actually reads the code, nobody knows what the app does.
> If someone vibe coded something and didn’t read it and I’m worried it contains something dangerous, I can ask Claude to analyze it and then run it in a docker container
And asking an LLM to "analyze it" is worthless. It will miss things here and make up things there. Running it in Docker does not mean it can't mess you up.
This and the other top story on HN right now ( I charged $18k for a Static HTML Page) [0] make it clear the the most important thing as a software developer is jumping through hoops and being agreeable. It does not matter if it makes sense to you. I’ve come to accept that I can’t always predict what is actually valuable for the business and should just go with the flow and take their money. The leetcode-style interview selects for this by presenting as an arbitrary hoop you have to jump through.
I made the switch as well. For many years I dual-booted Ubuntu and Windows, hanging on to my familiarity with Windows and love for Visual Studio. Finally October 2025 some update made games laggy on Windows while they still worked fine on Ubuntu. I attempted to fix this by reinstalling Windows 11 and found I could not figure out how to remove advertisements from the start menu. So I finally transferred all my files from ReFS to ZFS and committed to 100% Linux.
Something has gone wrong in Microsoft in the product management organization where they are more concerned with chasing advertising dollars and upselling OneDruge than building a good product. It is depressing because all the Microsoft engineers I’ve interacted with in open source work have been excellent.
I don’t see how your comment is relevant, none of things you mention are covered in the article. This was an article about logic bugs that can exist in spite of the borrow checker.
Is it really an obvious use case of LLMs? Traditional byte code to source decompilers are faster, use less memory, and are deterministic. Using a LLM to decompile code makes as much sense as using a LLM to compile code.
That said there are probably ways a LLM could improve a decompiler in a way that does not impact its correctness. Like deriving class and variables names based on context, when symbols are missing or obfuscated.
> a. Data Collection. The software may collect information about you and your use of the software, and send that to Microsoft. Microsoft may use this information to provide services and improve our products and services. You may opt-out of many of these scenarios, but not all, as described in the software documentation. There are also some features in the software that may enable you and Microsoft to collect data from users of your applications. If you use these features, you must comply with applicable law, including providing appropriate notices to users of your applications together with a copy of Microsoft�s privacy statement. Our privacy statement is located at https://aka.ms/privacy. You can learn more about data collection and its use in the software documentation and our privacy statement. Your use of the software operates as your consent to these practices.
> You may not work around any technical limitations in the software:
> * reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, or otherwise to derive the source code for the software, except and only to the extent required by third party licensing terms governing use of certain open-source components that may be included with the software;
> ...
> * share, publish, rent, or lease the software; or
> * provide the software as a stand-alone offering or combine it with any of your applications for others to use, or transfer the software or this agreement to any third party.
So you are not, for example, allowed to ship this in your application's docker image, you are in fact not allowed to redistribute it at all. So if you wanted to get a .NET debugger into your staging environment, you are not actually allowed to, unless you directly install it then-and-there with nuget. (I'm assuming we're talking about any type of enterprise context, where any given application is touched by contractors or employees from n>1 legal entities, so you are always distributing/sharing/transferring/making available).
Ya ya, I know you shouldn't have debuggers near prod, chiseled images, living off the land, yaddayadda. Regardless, it's needed or at least the easiest way at times, to actually be able to debug an application in staging or similar scenarios.
Also I'm not sure if e.g. blocking outgoing connections of the telemetry (even if by blanket policy) would already technically violate the license.
I assume this type is for compatibility with the 32-bit BOOL type on Windows. This is a common bugaboo when doing interoperability, as I think languages tend to define bool as a 8-bit value.
As long as changing the name of the default branch in a Git repo is worthy of the front page of Hacker News: I also changed my defaults this year. My muscle memory has changed so that “main” is now what I expect. I’ll just go with the flow and change the name of a branch whenever I trip over it.
reply