this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
23 points (92.6% liked)
Programming
28384 readers
274 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Got any examples of some of the issues LLMs can't solve? I still feel like an "advanced beginner" and want to know what's beyond
One of the biggest issues I see is the overcomplication of minor things. OP's link has examples. It wants to write every piece of code as if it is a user facing API. It will try to triple check every piece of memory that enters a function, even if the function that called it had it hard coded. It's really insane when it decides that due to all the error checking, it should create a helper function just to hold all of the error checking code for something that was spun up with the class default values.
The current thing I was working on was figuring out if I can do this: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc . This project, compiles a docker image, and runtime to a single container. The interesting thing I find about it, is that it brings the docker container runtime and sandbox along. If I replace a user's login shell with it, the user is now placed inside a sandboxed environment and can't do anything.
My usecase is I want to replace people's login shells with a container in a defensive cybersecurity competition. But, containers are not a sandbox, and full network access, and so on.
So my improvement, was to:
I am having trouble meeting all of these requirements, so I suspect one or a few will go, or I will have multiple versions of the project with tradeoffs.
All of my projects, often involve doing something standard, but with extra constraints, or some kind of "twist". Like a very common thing I find myself doing, is to do something normal, but then rip out one of the underlying components of the system, replacing it with something else.
I've found that I've learned a lot about how these systems work, without having to spend time building them entirely from scratch. You learn way more about Linux by reconfiguring your init system to enable encryption, than copy pasting from the Arch Linux Installation Guide the whole time, doing the standard setup. And then ignoring the partition layout so that my kernels are restored by BTRFS snapshots, which is not the default configuration.
That's the way to break out of tutorial hell. You have to not follow the tutorial. You can still follow them most of the way, but you have to pick a few steps, and do something different. I pick something that I think will benefit or make my setup better in some way.
It is kind of difficult, since I feel like Linux has gotten more popular, and people know write more blog posts, and something that was previously a cool twist, is now something I can find a tutorial for. But with some care, you can ensure you still are learning, and it's made easier by picking projects with twists.
That's fair, I have definitely learned more when I add my own weird constraints. Though I also find it takes 10x longer, and what's frustrating is that even after years of "learning" from this process, I still constantly run into these week-long time sinks troubleshooting various issues in my bespoke configurations. I still have to sift through documentation, forum posts, wiki articles. Do small scale experiments to break things down and figure out what's going on. Just takes so much time. Perhaps not exactly tutorial hell but still feels like a hell of its own.