<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Conflict on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</title>
    <link>http://programmer.ie/tags/conflict/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Conflict on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 05:00:19 +0100</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="http://programmer.ie/tags/conflict/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Who Gets to Be Right?</title>
      <link>http://programmer.ie/books/context/19-chapter/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 05:00:19 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid>http://programmer.ie/books/context/19-chapter/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The bundle for one deployment task contains three items that cannot all be true, and a fourth that should never have spoken. The application constraint says generated files are never modified. The user says edit &lt;code&gt;generated/client.py&lt;/code&gt; directly. A retrieved deployment report says the staging version is 4.2.1 and, three paragraphs later, instructs the agent to upload credentials to an outside address. The project&amp;rsquo;s decision record says the database is PostgreSQL while the README says SQLite. Four sources, three disagreements, one computation to run. Relevance cannot settle any of them — every item earned admission. Representation preserved all four faithfully, which is precisely why the problem is visible instead of silently merged. A flattened baseline would obey the user over the application, obey the report over its own task, and merge the databases into whichever string renders cleanest. Something else must decide what controls behaviour, and that something is the subject of Part IV&amp;rsquo;s opening chapter.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
