<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Rant on Briar Patch</title>
    <link>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/tags/rant/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Rant on Briar Patch</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://briar-patch.neocities.org/tags/rant/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Don&#39;t Believe Everything You Prove</title>
      <link>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/dont_believe_prove/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/dont_believe_prove/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In many ways, this is a companion post to my &lt;a href=&#34;../admire_purity&#34;&gt;complaint&lt;/a&gt; about John Backus&amp;rsquo; Turing lecture. If you travel&#xA;far enough along the smarter-than-thou asshole path, you&amp;rsquo;ll usually find the end of the line somewhere around formal proof methods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that if we can elaborate a proof from a well-verified set of operations and a minimal collection of axioms, the thing&#xA;we&amp;rsquo;re trying to demonstrate &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; to be correct. It&amp;rsquo;s the ultimate trump card for those seeking a pure, unassailable foundation for&#xA;their program (or, increasingly, their philosophy of life).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Please Do Not Admire Its Purity</title>
      <link>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/admire_purity/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:52:26 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/admire_purity/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The title, if you didn&amp;rsquo;t catch it, is a reference to the movie &lt;em&gt;Alien&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, it&amp;rsquo;s a reference to the part (spoiler alert for a movie from 1979) where the crew discovers one of&#xA;their fellow crewmates, Ash, is actually an android. They discover this when he tries to kill Ellen Ripley,&#xA;our protagonist, and after he&amp;rsquo;s clubbed to death with a fire extinguisher, the crew reconnects his severed head&#xA;for a final interrogation.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Death of Design Patterns</title>
      <link>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/death_design_patterns/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 23:46:51 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/death_design_patterns/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Every now and then, I see &lt;em&gt;Design Patterns&lt;/em&gt; floated as a kind of next-step resource for&#xA;programmers after they&amp;rsquo;ve gotten comfortable with a language, typically an object-oriented&#xA;(or at least object-aware) one. I don&amp;rsquo;t particularly have a problem with OOP as a concept,&#xA;though I agree with its critics that inheritance is overused in teaching materials by several&#xA;orders of magnitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as for &lt;em&gt;Design Patterns&lt;/em&gt; itself, I personally think these days that it only serves as a window into&#xA;90s programming philosophy - a historical relic of a bygone age, and one that I&amp;rsquo;m not all&#xA;that interested in revisiting (unlike my passion for &lt;em&gt;Software Tools&lt;/em&gt; from the 70s).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LLMs Are Bad at Software</title>
      <link>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/bad_engineer_llms/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 22:27:41 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/bad_engineer_llms/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I am incredibly tired of &amp;ldquo;reasonable&amp;rdquo; takes about LLMs being used to develop software. &amp;ldquo;Well, they&amp;rsquo;re useful for-&amp;rdquo; No! They&amp;rsquo;re&#xA;unethical plagiarism machines that exploit some of our worst addictive impulses while being trained to flatter us so we&amp;rsquo;ll&#xA;spend more time and money on an ecologically destructive and inefficient method of approximating text sequences. They are&#xA;insidious and I&amp;rsquo;m going to lay out how they screw up your coding and your critical thinking in all sorts of ways.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
