> The core of what we were doing (Writing code) dictated the core of our tool kit (IDE). > > Now that we're not writing code anymore it's very exciting to see how this unfolds in the tool kit.

So maybe the text area in your IDE becomes read-only. Even when not actively debugging, you still need to read code and efficiently browse through it as you review it. Because you always review code, don't you? Don't you??

Of course, but it's a 50/50 between exploring the code in an IDE and just looking at the diff.

For simple things the diff is enough, but for something more complex diving into the code and following branches etc. is required.

For what is worth, I prefer the name pomato to totato.

I'll keep that in mind when marketing. I was going to go with French Fry Tree.

Name to consider: twoatos (pot- and tom-)

For what it's worth, it's what caught my attention. I wouldn't have found it so captivating if it had only said "Fixing Google Nano Banana Pixel Art". To be clear, it's not because of Rust in particular. It would have been the same if it said "with C#", or "with Python", or even just "programmatically". And on that note: I feel disappointed. I thought I would be reading about the development process, and not just a product presentation.

If someone makes a presentation about this format, it will be a PEP talk.

</philosoraptor>

> Once (a) models are capable enough to distinguish between semi-plausible garbage and possibly relevant text

https://xkcd.com/810/

It breaks scrolling with the arrow keys or PgDn/PgUp as well.

After a certain number of open tabs, the titles are less truncated with vertical tabs than horizontal tabs. You also have more of the titles in your center view if you have the text distributed in a more rectangular shape than a technically-also-rectangular-but-much-more-elongated shape.

> I haven't seen GitHub break a working URL that they have hosted in the 17+ years since they first launched.

I'd like to have working links in the directory tree again, please. Some of us like middle-clicking to open files in new tabs.

Since there are _literally_ people who use, and have been using for a while, the word without the same exact meaning as we both agree on... well.

Having said that, I will join you in this fight.

See also: exponentially.

Language is defined by its speakers, as basically a "vote". I'm going to keep voting for "literally" meaning "this actually happened" as long as it's practical, because 1) there are dozens of other ways to emphasize something 2) we need some way to say "this is not an exaggeration".

“Exponentially” and “quantum” are the only language hills I’d die on.

Why a quantum leap isn’t the length of an Ångstrom will always sadden me. I’m sure there are other scientific concepts you can use to describe a Great Leap Forward…

I think the Quantum Leap expression can also be understood as a "step" with no intermediate stages, i.e. very abrupt or transformative.

About time. (not sorry)