Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cerved's commentslogin

The advantage is that you can run it in a terminal... So in tmux, over ssh, etc.


Why or how is that an advantage over proper GUIs via some remote desktop protocol?


Latency. My home setup has a different number of screens vs the single virtual display on the headless workstation/instance. I don't want to deal with a Linux GUI shoved into my Mac via screenshare. Linux screenshare host is finicky in the first place. I do lots of stuff via CLIs anyway. I connect to multiple remote instances at once. All those reasons make it easier to SSH.


My theory is it writes these comments as "notes while working", and I don't don't mind that, per-se. My problem is it's inability to clean that shit up before committing it. That's wrong load-bearing lever that doesn't earn it's keep.

Also, it reads like ass.


I'm becoming increasingly allergic to the performative writing of LLMs.

The worst part is how compulsive LLMs are at writing like this. Like the system prompt instructs it to "reason" and like a college Sophomore it pontificates and quotes Nietzsche to fein intelligence and orginal thought.


I love LLMs for technical stuff, but their writing style is horrendous. I also think it's bad form to waste fellow humans' time with walls of generated text.

I understand that it's probably a hard technical problem to get models to conform to a style without sacrificing performance in other areas. But I really wish AI companies would spend more effort getting them to write in a neutral, concise way and not like a middle manager on 80mg of Adderall.


> But I really wish AI companies would spend more effort getting them to write in a neutral, concise way

I wonder if this would make it harder or easier to detect whether the underlying meaning of the writing is bullshit.


Definitely easier. It's the same for humans. You can tell that someone has little of substance say when they cloak everything in big words and elaborate metaphors.


Good old sesquipedalian loquaciousness.


Vin fugitives difftool is even better

Also, you can use -p for stash push


and also for git restore


and also for `git reset`, when you added one thing by mistake.


yeah, but I'm just using `git restore -S -p`


You dont need to open the reflog you can just

    git reset --hard @{1}
After a rebase to "undo" it.


Worktrees effectively share the entire state of the repo. Only limitation is that a branch can only be checked out in one repo at a time.

Clones only share the immutable object store

For most practical uses of same repo checking out different branches locally, worktrees are better.

The nice thing about clones is that you can have a backup clone, a wip clone, a review clone where you don't clutter the amount of local branch refs


ofc if you're running AI agents in YOLO mode — clones means you don't need to worry that Sonnet is going to see your .git/index.lock file and go "this is blocking me, let's rm -f this" and corrupt all your work that you never bothered pushing


you can also setup a local remote which hardlinks the index so it doesn't occupy more space. Why? Idk. You don't want to share stash, rerere-cache, branches whatever.

Also handy if you're running an agent in a container on the local fs. Set up a local clone, contain the agent to that repo folder and have it hack away on that. Later, you step out of the container and do the syncing. You can't use worktrees in this situations.

Bare repos are also pretty cool. You can clone the git mailing list as a bare repo and search for threads there instead of setting up an mbox (same for the kernel obviously)


At that point you might as well use a worktree[1].

[1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree


You can't use a worktree without write access to the shared object database. You can use worktrees, or you can containerize your agents, but you can't do both.


Doesn't work. You need to mount both the worktree and the repo which defeats the point


> hardlinks the index

I think you mean hardlinks the object database? The index (staging area) changes constantly. Not much point in hardlinking it.

Hardlinking the object database is the default behavior with you clone locally on linux. It's great for one-off clones such as CI/CD pipelines and agentic containers, but the benefit in terms of disk space saved is short-lived: as repos evolve independently, they replace their packfiles with new ones, and the new ones will not be hardlinked because they don't contain the same objects.

I like to keep bare repositories in dropbox, but I use `--no-hardlinks` when cloning, because before I did that, on one occasion, dropbox corrupted the bare repo, and my working repo was corrupted as a result.


which harness has actual containment controls and not just suggestions?


Fwiw you can create your own trailers

    Yolo-Slopped-By: Sonnet-4.5 <claude@anthropic.com>
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers


if you want to reason about language correctness you are better off using linters, compilers and things like fuzzing

> the trend is AI also does the code review

please no. Keep at least four eyes on all code you ship


Anthropic obviously vibe code everything and it shows


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: