Real-world software creation follows other rules.

Unless this gets independently reproduced, I am not believing one word of that claim.

Are you functionally illiterate?

You are hallucinating hard...

Of course, you usually don't give them that info until after the price has been agreed upon.

I understand your knee jerk intuition about crypto currency. But very earnestly I suggest learning a bit about monetary policy. It's indispensable. And after that you may want to read about bretton woods and how banks in different countries actually can trade money to each other. The US treasury and its impact on monetary policy enables this. It's not just a methodology in the sense that bitcoin is a method for moving money. Monetary policy is how countries can perform the miracle of Keynesian economics to regenerate Growth in a downturn. That cannot ever be done ever without fiat currency and a central bank. Period. This was. Why for example Germany plunged in to pre-hitler ruin after world war 1. There was no way to climb out of turned down economy when you had no gold reserves (France took them). Germany only managed to recover when they pegged their mark to a kilo of wheat-- not a long term solution but a desperate move that mostly worked. But the economic malaise didn't end till Hitler started spending money into the economy. That was made possible by moving off the gold standard prior to Hitler.

Without monetary policy you are left with the austerity of Austrian economics which pretty much inverts the rational of monetary policy and loses all it's advantages.

If crypto ever rises to rival the dollar you can kiss the USA goodbye because it will mean the end of monetary policy and central banking. If you say good riddance, I think you may not understand how the world works

I've been using LO pretty much constantly for the last two years (even wrote a novel on it). Like any interface, it just takes time to become familiar. In fact, I like the way Writer organizes styles and style configuration far better than Word, and often, even for DOCX files, do initial style set up and layout in Writer and then move to Word if I have to (which is seldom enough).

LO is a damned good office system. Its default UI is older, but since I used MS-Edit and Word pretty extensively back in the 1990s, it feels familiar to me. There is a ribbon interface, but I've only tried it a few times before remembering why it is I actually don't like the Word ribbon.

It is almost like the asshole makers of commercial firewalls (and the like) are using the cheapest and least competent coders they can get their hands on. Obviously, attackers will use that.

Sorry, but code review is always slower than writing code on the same quality level above a very low complexity threshold. This is well established. It stems from (a) the code not being your code and hence the style making things more difficult for you and (b) review needing to use a top-down approach. There is nothing that can be done about these things.

Your statement "And reviewing one function should be pretty easy for a skilled coder." is bullshit and leads me to believe you have no real-world code review experience.

Sure, it can be done by somebody competent and experienced. But it does not save time to have AI write flawed code and then review it to fix it when you want the same quality level as something originally written by a competent coder. It takes more time.

Also, when you want high quality code you have two quality gates: (1) The coder and (2) the reviewer. With AI, you only have the reviewer as an instance that knows what they are doing. So coder+reviewer and AI+reviewer are not the same thing. The second is automatically on lower quality level. Maybe coder+reviewer can be compared to AI+"2 independent reviewers", but that would require some research to prove because coder and reviewer have different perspectives and hence avoid different mistakes. Two reviewers would lose that advantage.

Indeed. And ODF is not that much worse.

Yep, same experience here. MS UIs do not aim to make users more efficient. MS intentionally (at least I have no doubt) makes UIs more cumbersome, slower, more clicks needed, because then users spend more time with that product and that, by an entirely perverted metric, makes MS more important.

This "success metric" can be found in one other place: Bureaucracies. Bureaucracies become more important (in their own view) if the can "bind" (i.e. waste) more time of others. MS uses the same disgusting and repulsive model.

What? Working with LibreOffice is wayyyy more efficient than with MS Office. You actually find things and it does not take tons of clicks to do stuff. It does not permanently stand in your way. MS Office really has no chance in a direct comparison except with a few Stockholm Syndrome sufferers and these can still activate the stupid and cumbersome "ribbon" interface in LibreOffice as well.

And incidentally, LibreOffice, being derived from StarOffice has 40 years of development history. That is 5 years more (!) than MS Office.

Because anti-competitive behavior is just that: Not competing on merit but instead scamming users and competitors. I hope there will be another massive fine from the EU incoming. Because obviously, there is absolutely no need to do it this way on the tech side.