No, the phrasing makes it clear someone wrote a fictional account of becoming self aware that the output of vibe coding isn't maintainable as it scales.

[–] andioop@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

I'm entirely too trusting and would like to know what about the phrasing tips you off that it's fictional. Back on Reddit I remember so many claims about posts being fake and I was never able to tease out what distinguished the "omg fake! r/thathappened" posts from the ones that weren't accused of that, and I feel this is a skill I should be able to have on some level. Although taking an amusing post that wasn't real as real doesn't always have bad consequences.

But I mostly asked because I'm curious about the weird extra width on letters.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting. Curious for a point of comparison how The Onion reads to you.

(Only a mediocre point of comparison I fear, but)

[–] andioop@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

That's a bit difficult because I already go into anything from The Onion knowing it's intended to be humorous/satirical.

What I lack in ability to recognize satire or outright deception from posts written online, I make up for by reading comment threads: seeing people accuse things of being fake, seeing people defend it as true, seeing people point out the entire intention of a website is satire, seeing people who had a joke go over their heads get it explained... relying on the collective hivemind to help me out where I am deficient. It's not a perfect solution at all, especially since people can judge wrong—I bet some "omg so fake" threads were actually real, and some astroturf-type things written to influence others without real experience behind it got through as real.

load more comments (10 replies)