Same for me, has been my whole life. I complain about it all the time. It's well documented that people can read black on light far better and with less eye strain than light on black; yet there seems to be a whole generation of developers determined to force us all to try and read it. Even the media sites like Netflix, Prime, etc. force it. At least Tubi's is somewhat more readable.

Sometimes a site will include a button or other UI element to choose a light theme but I find it odd that so many sites which are presumed to be designed by technically competent people, completely ignore accessibility concerns.

I find dark mode much easier to read and far less eye strain. I guess it just shows that users should be the ones to set the preference. There are studies on monkeys showing light mode leading to myopia. Although lately I have come to learn there are lots of poorly done studies.

Do you sit in a bright room? Right now, during the night, I see your comment like this: https://i.imgur.com/c7fmBns.png, but during the day when the room is bright, I also see everything with light themes/background colors, otherwise it is indeed hard to see properly.

Yeah I am the same.

Definitely in the minority on this one as dark mode is really popular these days.

Really hard to describe how it is literally physically painful for my eyes. Very strange.

I feel your pain. For me it is the opposite: I get headaches from bright backgrounds because I'm light-sensitive.

Ok we've deformalized the title above.

I think the magic sauce in this project is the fact that they convert diffs in spec to diffs in code, which is likely more stable than just regenerating the whole thing.

The thing is, such exploration can be done on a whiteboard or a moodboard. Once it’s we settled on a process, we code it and let the computer take over.

I really believe the struggle is knowledge and communication of ideas, not the coding part (which is fairly easy IMO).

I'm sure that this time the language will be simple and English-like enough that execs can use it directly, similarly to COBOL and SQL.

The idea is this would be a kind of IL for natural language queries. Then the main LLM isn't dependent on quirks of English.

No joke. I'm 100% sure that if it's successful, we will find CC's skill to write specs for CodeSpeak.

Damn, I am the product A-GAIN?

COBOL?

sssssh! if this catches on we can keep our jobs! (j/k, mostly)

That seems like it could lead to imprecise outcomes, so I've started a business that defines a spec to output the correct English to input to your product.

I'm really glad random HN commenters know it better than someone that built a language that has been used in thousands of products.

relevant Dijkstra https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...

"In order to make machines significantly easier to use, it has been proposed (to try) to design machines that we could instruct in our native tongues. this would, admittedly, make the machines much more complicated, but, it was argued, by letting the machine carry a larger share of the burden, life would become easier for us. It sounds sensible provided you blame the obligation to use a formal symbolism as the source of your difficulties. But is the argument valid? I doubt."

Somewhere Dijkstra is laughing his ass off.

"Don't be snarky."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html