Thiago Padilha

Geek, computer programmer, @Neovim founder.

[Felipe O. Carvalho @_Felipe]

@eatonphil @ShriramKMurthi 💯More worrisome is the fact that most people think it’s not a problem.

[Armin Ronacher ⇌ @mitsuhiko]

Project lead talking about Fable. https://t.co/dnkvqsouGb

[Valentin Ignatev @valigo]

"I use loops", said Linux Kernel creator Linus Torvalds, when asked about new trends.

"You can't write programs without loops", he added.

[Armin Ronacher ⇌ @mitsuhiko]

@aarondfrancis Wake up. Bring kids to school/daycare. Work. Put kids to bed. Love your wife. Loop

[Felipe O. Carvalho @_Felipe]

Coding agents makes software engineering work even harder to objectively measure. It's harder than ever to hire a team of developers, deploy some easy-to-manage automatable process and get quality output. Engineering good will is required more than ever.

[Felipe O. Carvalho @_Felipe]

Learning programming from scratch in 2026 requires a superhuman level of intellectual honesty and work ethic. Metacognition bankruptcy. You don't know what you know and what you don't know anymore as a student.

[Victor Mota @vimota]

you can whine about ensloppification or you can take advantage of the generationally low bar that exists for everything now

when we post a job opening 9/10 applications are total slop, all it takes is one thoughtful email to get properly looked at - but no one puts in the effort

[Georgi Gerganov @ggerganov]

Strong signal for local AI on this year's Computex. Big players like NVIDIA and Microsoft are embracing and discussing local AI workloads. Dedicated consumer hardware and models are on the way.

[Armin Ronacher ⇌ @mitsuhiko]

I really believed a whole generation of developers, who only know open source from npm and pypi, miss how open source actually used to work.

When Debian or a Linux distribution ships a dependency they take responsibility of it. If there is a security issue and it’s not fixed by the developer upstream, they fix it for their users.

Debian and others basically vendor every thing they distribute. They honor the license and they maintain patches. Most of the stuff that you get from your Linux distribution is basically a (small) fork.

The same is true for Apple, Microsoft and others. The open source software they ship, they carry that responsibility.

That doesn’t mean that security fixes are not upstreamed, but Apple or Debian or anyone else won’t jump in Twitter to shame a developer into compliance with their ways. They are not dependent on the health of a packaging infrastructure. They own their software including all the things it depends on.

I want that thinking back. Because it fundamentally makes people feel more responsibility and it shares the burden of issues. It also does not put so much focus and attention on the one overworked developer who just happened to have too much of the world depend on their library. Remember: they carry a responsibility they never signed up to and they never got compensated for.

[Felipe O. Carvalho @_Felipe]

If you insist on using code editors in the agentic programming era, you are better off with a tool that has committed to tradition since its beginnings: @Neovim.

[Loris Cro ⚡ @croloris]

New Zig Devlog about ELF linker improvements, featuring 30ms rebuilds of a Tetris game.

Incremental is coming and y'all not ready.

https://t.co/n51gYLrDjY

[Thiago Padilha @tarrudap]

Private benchmarks tend to be biased.

I have a very simple code investigation benchmark (on llama.cpp codebase) that very few models have passed so far.

GPT 5.x are the only models that passes on it consistently. Both Qwen 3.6 have a good pass rate despite being well below 100B parameters. Step 3.7 Flash also passed on it, though not as consistently as Qwen 3.6 27b. Both Deepseek 4 models fail on it consistently and simply hallucinate the answer despite having many times the number of parameters as Qwen 3.6.

Does that mean that Qwen 3.6 or Step 3.7 Flash are better than Deepseek 4? Definitely not. It only means that they are better in this benchmark.

[Victor Mota @vimota]

Besides being much smarter, gpt 5.5 is a much more “neutral” model than opus 4.6.

You can always tell when a code change was written by opus. It tends to be extremely reward hacky and comment-ridden, whereas with codex, you can't actually distinguish it.

It’s much more steerable and lets the developers preferences shine through.

[Тsфdiиg @tsoding]

We are cooked

[Victor Mota @vimota]

From @mitsuhiko 's latest post on AI and the Pi codebase.

It's becoming more and more obvious that coding agents tend to just work in very incremental, short term fashion to accomplish any given task - as a result of the way they've been RL'd.

We collectively need to name this so we can work to avoid it. It's a special type of slop that needs its own term.

[Tibo @thsottiaux]

A little secret. About 5% of our production traffic is on the Pi harness, about another 5% is on OpenCode. Reminder you can use your ChatGPT account in a flourishing set of other tools.

We’ll continue to make Codex awesome, but you have options.

[Mitchell Hashimoto @mitchellh]

Supply chain attacks and OSS sustainability go hand in hand. I've semi-seriously joked for years that OSS upstreams should periodically purposely inject full vulns into their code and let downstreams fuck around and find out. Downstreams can pay to get the non-FAFO version.

The not joke part is simply that OSS maintainers aren't a supply chain. OSS maintainers are not responsible for monitoring CVEs (because, they are not a supply chain). OSS maintainers are not at fault when bad shit happens to downstreams, because basically every OSS license (MIT, Apache, GPL, etc.) literally says: the software is provided "as-is, without warranty." You get what you pay for (that is to say: absolutely nothing!)

Now, the joke part is that I do believe there is an ethical obligation to try to prevent harm downstream. But "try" is the key word. So, this isn't a serious proposal.

But, if you're using OSS code and you're not paying for a license with a contract that promises some kind of warranty, you have no supply chain. You (the downstream user of an OSS lib) ARE the supply chain.

To use a metaphor: physical goods have a real supply chain. Car manufacturers, chips, clothes, toys, etc. You have a signed commercial agreement with all your suppliers that promises quantity AND quality and blowback if either are missed. Thats a supply chain.

If someone puts some chips on the side of the road with a "FREE" sign, then you integrate those into a product, then find out those chips are hacking customers, its your fault, not the person who dropped them on the side of the road.

[ThePrimeagen @ThePrimeagen]

Follow this advice

[Thiago Padilha @tarrudap]

@elder_plinius @Alibaba_Qwen Looking forward to trying Qwen 3.7 397B when the weights are available.

[Pliny the Liberator 🐉󠅫󠄼󠄿󠅆󠄵󠄐󠅀󠄼󠄹󠄾󠅉󠅭 @elder_plinius]

@Alibaba_Qwen