Bryce

So we have to turn our sense of design and style, and we have to we have to quantify what good code is. And I I don't think this is going to necessarily be an easy problem, but I do think it's it's doable. I'll give you an example.

SPEAKER_02

Welcome to ADSP the podcast, episode 299, recorded on August 12th, 2026. My name is Connor, and today with my co-host Bright, we chat about code review in the age of AI and whether humans are still needed in the loop.

Bryce

Connor. What's up, buddy? Did you misspell your own name?

SPEAKER_02

Well, first of all, how's my audio quality?

Bryce

Your audio quality is very good.

SPEAKER_02

That's surprising.

Bryce

Wait, I gotta get my headphones.

SPEAKER_02

Okay.

Bryce

What by good I mean relative to my computer.

SPEAKER_00

Okay.

Bryce

Okay. Um, all right. Now I well I found one pair of headphones. I don't know where my other headphones are, and my computer is this thing's really on its last leg. It's um it's uh you know, it's 10 years old. I had been hoping to upgrade it three years ago when the uh when the new NVIDIA laptop chip came out, but I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. Hopefully soon I'll be able to get the RTX Spark laptop. Very excited about it. Um but uh yeah, this thing barely works now. But okay, so you you sent me an invitation that's Connor C-O-N-N-O-R.

SPEAKER_02

I did.

Bryce

Yes, that that is that is not how you spell your name.

SPEAKER_02

At least you asked earlier, did I spell my name wrong? And I did not. So, question, Bryce. What are the top three reasons the name would be spelt wrong in my invite?

Bryce

Well, I suppose it's possible that this entire time I have been spelling your name wrong, and you have just never corrected me.

SPEAKER_02

No, it's definitely not in. My name is uh one and it's the Irish spelling uh because I'm half Irish. Um, so guess again.

Bryce

Uh because you can't type well today because your hands are busy.

SPEAKER_02

I can't type at all right now. You're very hot, very hot indeed.

Bryce

Because you're running or you're doing some other activity.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, I'll I'll I'll take myself off uh camera for a second.

Bryce

Are you driving?

SPEAKER_02

I am driving, folks. It's a it's an ADSP first. Road trip.

Bryce

Where why are you driving? Is this unexpected driving?

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, I was supposed to be back by now, um, but I've been running late all day long. And uh I was gonna message you to say I'm gonna be an hour late, so like maybe we can just chat and then we can record when I get home. But according to you, my audio is good. Uh will the recording be good? I don't know.

Bryce

Um I mean, and now that I have my headphones in, it is less good, but I say what we do.

SPEAKER_02

I mean, and man oh man is uh is the traffic bad. Uh so it's take it's gonna take me twice as long to get home. I may or may not be picking up Shima uh on the way home, but I'm supposed to be home at five. The meeting recording is supposed to end at 5 30, so we will definitely get one solid 30-minute episode once I get home. So maybe we should treat the and I have a really good topic, um, which I'm hesitant to start talking about now because I don't know how bad the audio quality is and I want it to be good audio. So I mean, we can chit just chat for the next 40 minutes and uh maybe we can keep this as bonus, what do you call it? Uh like uh recording. No, it's not footage, but uh, you know, if uh if it's good enough to use, we'll release this not as a bonus episode. If it's not good enough, maybe when I've got the kid and I can't record, this will be a backup.

Bryce

Um I was I was about I I was about to say, like, uh, you know, the this is good prep for the listener because uh my my my first thought was like was like oh the baby has come early and Connor Connor's like on his way to the hospital or waiting at the hospital or something.

SPEAKER_02

No, no, no. Uh I mean the baby could come any day now. I think Shima is 36 weeks or whatever full term is.

Bryce

So now we're at the point where wait, why why do you have to why do you have to pick her up? Isn't she off isn't she taking time off work before the before she's due?

SPEAKER_02

No, no, she's working right up until my mom did the same thing. Yeah, yeah. It's uh although now yeah, she is work she was working up, I think, right up until and apparently that actually I learned about something. There is both uh maternity leave and pregnancy leave, apparently, yeah in Canada for certain roles, and you have to take, at least for her job as a public health doctor, you have to take the pregnancy leave before you take the maternity leave, but you can take the pregnancy leave as soon as the baby's born, so it's a bit of a misnomer. Uh it's like optionally pregnancy leave, anyways. Um, the baby is still cooking in the oven. She myself is.

Bryce

Remind me, remind me, did you have a name yet?

SPEAKER_02

Uh we have two names, my favorite and her favorite. And uh her favorite is my second favorite.

Bryce

Wait, it's a it's a boy, right?

SPEAKER_02

It's a boy, yeah. Yes, um, and my favorite at one point was her second favorite, but she's kind of fallen out of love with it. So I'm pretty sure it's not conclusive. Although, I mean, this episode might come out uh two days from now, and Schuma may or may not listen. But we haven't even discussed the finalization of this, but all all indicators point towards uh we unofficially have a name picked that we actually haven't like finalized. Um but yeah. I really love my my name, uh, but you know, it's a team effort, you know. We uh all all parties must contribute.

Bryce

Uh oh man. Oh so what what why were you late? Why were you late? What were you doing today that made you late?

SPEAKER_02

Uh a lot of stuff. Uh I was in the morning watching uh Odyssey in IMAX 70 millimeter, which I bought the tickets for a month ago because it's sold out in the middle.

Bryce

The tickets in New York are like $500 or something.

SPEAKER_02

Do you have dynamic pricing on IMAX theater tickets?

Bryce

Um or is it like I think there's I think I think it's like the second market or something. That's just conjecture. That's just like something I heard. I mean, it could be wrong.

SPEAKER_02

I I ended up going by myself because there were no like basically in Canada, Cineplex puts the uh theater tickets on sale a month out. And for that entire month, basically, IMAX IMAX 70 millimeter, of which there are two in the Greater Toronto area, are basically all sold out except for the like the 11 a.m. and the uh I think like 3 p.m. shows. And even those, it's only like the bottom section with like one seaters. And uh anyways, we actually considered driving to Rochester, New York because they had uh tickets available for the 1045 showing. Um, anyways, so that was in the morning, and then that uh ooh, I ended up just seeing oh, what is that? It was a little bird. It was a hawk.

Bryce

I knew it, I knew it was a bird, folks. I called it.

SPEAKER_02

It might have been a red-tailed hawk, but it might have been something else. It might have been a broad-winged hawk. It was, I mean, you know, you gotta keep your eyes on the road, or at least that's what uh that's what you should be doing while while recording a podcast and uh I didn't realize that Ramona was home and I just shouted that very loudly, and she just walked into the room and she gave me a look and then she closed the door.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah.

Bryce

Oh man, I am looking for the Odyssey ticket. Uh I didn't want to go see it.

SPEAKER_02

I won't uh I won't say anything now because I don't uh want to spoil it because I imagine many of our listeners have not seen it. Um, although I guess maybe because the thing is, is it's really the IMAX 70 millimeter that are the ones that are like sold out because that's uh what the show or the movie was filmed for. Anyways, no spoilers, no reviews, maybe in like remind me around like November Christmas time, at which point you have no excuse if you haven't seen it by then. And uh you'll you'll have seen it by then, and maybe we can do a uh uh Odyssey review. Anyways, then I I had to run, and then there was a meeting in the middle of that, and um, and so yeah, it's just been uh a crazy day. And uh here we are now, recording on the way back home. What have you been up to? How is how's life? How's work? How's AI?

Bryce

There are tickets, there are tickets available. Maybe Ramona, I'll see it. Um oh man, I have uh I just got back from Greece. Ramona and I were in Greece. Uh she was doing this acting residency, and that was very cool. She got to like act in this play under the like uh right next to the Temple of Apollo in Corinth, like at the archaeological society. It was very cool. And like they have to the whole play is in Greek, so these this theater company like they had like three weeks to like learn how to say everything in Greek, and uh like all the Greek people kept coming up to her and being like, Oh, your accent's perfect, like how like I you know, and it's like talking to her in Greek and whatnot. And I'm just like, I could not, I could not do that. But uh, but we just got back. I was I was in Greece, was working from Greece, it was very hot, there's no AC. I'm very glad to be back in uh America where there's air conditioning, but Greece is really lovely. Um and uh man, I've just been I've just been burning all the tokens, burning all the tokens. The thing, the thing I've been trying to answer recently has been what programming languages are most token efficient? And uh it's uh for specifically for CUDA kernel writing. It's a mixed bag. It's a mixed bag, and uh I gotta get some more data and do some more analysis before I before I know for sure. But uh but yeah, I uh I just been uh I I feel like I've never been busier. Um just so many projects, so much to do, so little time to do it all. Um you know, I've been I've I've been thinking more and more about how we're gonna review all this stuff. You know, in the past we did this thing where somebody would propose change to code base and then a human would go and read the code and we would all talk about the code and and we would iterate on the code. Um and it just increasingly seems to me like that process is not sustainable going forward. Um and so I've started thinking about what is the alternative, and uh I have come to the conclusion that all design uh aesthetic style, taste, and sense preferences that we have are only meaningful if they can be machine uh checkable. So we have to turn our sense of design and style and and we have to we have to quantify what good code is. And I I don't think this is gonna necessarily be an easy problem, but I do think it's uh it's doable. I'll give you an example. Um let's say that you get a PR that uh um adds some new feature to your code base, but it it also introduces this uh utility function. Uh-huh. And it turns out that there's another utility function already in the existing code base that you should really be using instead. At first glance, this seems like something that is hard to quantify, right? Like the the lesson here is like don't reinvent yourself, don't duplicate things, right? Like you don't want to have duplicated functionality within the code. So, like, how could we possibly make this something that we have a hard check for? Well, it turns out this one's actually kind of tractable because what you can do is you could build a tool that looks at the AST of the PR, of all the changes introduced by the PR and compares all of the entities introduced by the PR against everything existing in the code base. And so like if you added some new function and that function was like 95% similar to an existing function in the code base, you could build a tool that could detect that and that could then leave a review comment saying, hey, did you consider using this function instead, this existing function? So for things like abstractions, genericity, um uh don't repeat yourself, some of that stuff we could maybe build deterministic tools for. Um and I've just been wondering like, how much of style and sense do can we actually turn into something that's machine checkable? Because I think anything that that we can't make machine checkable is not gonna matter because the only way to review code changes in the future is gonna be to have testing in place that's good enough that we trust that if the tests pass, that the code is good to merge. And that the tests have to not only test functionality, but also the quality of the code.

SPEAKER_02

And what percentage of code do you think actually needs to be like reviewable in the future? Like, does code quality from like a human point of view matter? Like what or so the real question is because I know uh like I think that well, actually, I don't know if everyone can agree that some percentage of code like doesn't need to be reviewed. So like what what code needs to be reviewed?

Bryce

Um I think like yeah, like examples of code that doesn't need to be reviewed. If it's like something for like some like internal info project or some like script or something like that, yeah, maybe it doesn't need to be reviewed. But for something that's like going into like you know, a software application or like a library in particular or something like that, um, it's not that the code needs to be reviewed. It's never been about the review of the code, it's about quality control. It's always been about just quality control and testing. And like there's there's nothing sacred about the review process. The the reason that we do the reviews today is because we have not been able to automate the checking for quality. And if you think about it, there was a time when we did not have CI in this industry, where we did not have continuous testing, where if you like the only way to know whether the commit was good or not was like you would go and run manual testing. Um and like we think of that now as the dark ages. And I think in the future, we may think of the days of code review as being the dark ages too. Um, but I do think that like there again, it's not about the review, it's about whether we can create systems that we are confident enough that the automated testing process is sufficient to ensure the quality of the product. And today, I think there are very few large, important, critical production code bases for which the automated validation is sufficient to allow agents to merge PRs without human review. And that is a problem that the industry needs to solve. That we we do not every code base has some amount of unwritten, intangible guidelines and practices and rules that exist largely for good reason and which, if not followed, might make the code difficult to maintain or introduce bugs in the future, um, or make the code difficult to audit or for difficult for humans to understand, which I do think human understandability is important. Um and I don't think that any code base today is in a place where it has sufficiently automated all of those rules and guidelines to a point where you could just let agents, if they pass this set of checks, you can let them commit.

SPEAKER_02

Uh I don't know. I mean, maybe. You're you're you're like picturing uh very still um, I don't know, I I feel like you're projecting the the flaws of like human programming onto the future of like AI programming. And uh I have honestly over the last like month become more and more infuriated with the quality, and I am like I am uh omitting many, many expletives that my wife has heard uh about like how bad software is. Like like huge, like we seem to think that like we talk about like oh AI, blah blah blah, it's not as good. Like, look at the state of the software industry. I have I I want to make this YouTube video that I just don't have time to make that's called the worst software like ever written, and it is my Toyota uh phone app. It it never works, it never works. Every single time you open the app, whatever you try to do and like the information that it provides you is stale. And like you have to open the app, and you can't just close it right away. You have to wait, like you have to open it up, close it, maybe do that a couple times, and like wait a minute or two. Every single time I click charge now, it tells me failed to do that operation, but it's always successful. And uh, and like so many times, at least like four or five times a month, it turns off my manual charging and like it's scheduled to start at 7 p.m. And so like if that it gets that gets turned off, like the car doesn't get charged, and then we I it's like it's literally polluting the world. This app is making me cause like like use more gasoline. Like every once in a while, the car just starts using gasoline. Like right now, I'm on electric mode, and the thing about the the Prius 2025 model that I have, it's like as long as you have a battery, you can keep it in EV mode. I found though that if you go below minus 13 Celsius, it turns off the ability to be electric, irritating, but whatever. But then sometimes it just like turns on for no reason. Anyways, like we did this, we did this, and like AI is so good, codex GPT 5.6. Like, if you ask it to go and diagnose all the bugs in some program, it'll it goes and finds so much stuff, and that's stuff that humans wrote. And uh anyway, so I just like I just have started to notice like how bad all software is. Uh, there's not like a single piece of software or like technology that I use that just constantly works well, and that like I either don't notice because it works so well, or like I'm happy because I'm just like, wow, this is a really great piece of software. Like, all of it's terrible to some extent. And uh anyway, so when I hear you talking about like, oh, you know, we gotta we gotta figure out how to do this and that, I'm just like I will give you I will give you an example.

Bryce

I will give you an example right now Of good software?

SPEAKER_02

Of good software?

SPEAKER_00

No.

Bryce

Right now, right now, the CUDA core compute libraries repo has 300 open PRs and 1.6k open issues. And I think if we merged all of the PRs that were currently passing tests, I think it would break it would be chaos. Like if you took all of the PRs that were currently passing the test and you merged them all, I am sure that bad things would happen. And that to me means that like we're not ready. Like we don't have sufficient, we don't have we have not sufficiently spec'd or validated the functionality that this software is supposed to provide. And likewise, I think if you told if you told an agent go fix every one of these 1.6k issues and like like close every issue by like merging commits to the to merging commits or close them if they're invalid or or whatever, um, again, I think it would be chaos. Would you disagree?

SPEAKER_02

I I disagree. I disagree. I think I think it's not as easy as just sending uh 5.6 uh soul off to fix everything. But I think that like if you whether just individually or as a team like guided it, because some of these things I guarantee you are gonna conflict. And so like it's it's something that like a decision needs to be made. If you gave the AI Like uh direction saying, like, listen, this is our overarching goals. If you end up seeing two things that are in conflict with each other, like make a decision as like a project manager. I honestly I think it might be it might do just as well as humans, but like uh and I'm not saying that it would get it on one shot, but if you set this thing up in a loop and like told it what the existing infrastructure is and said, hey, like add whatever more infrastructure. I I honestly I think it would succeed, but but and I I'm of the opinion that like it like that these models programmatically are better than like almost all humans in like every domain.

Bryce

But do you think do you think if we merged all 300 of these PRs, do you not think that it would introduce instabilities into the code base that over time would make it unmaintainable?

SPEAKER_02

Well, I mean, if you asked the AI to merge all uh 300 of these things, it wouldn't just do it all at once. I like, you know, you you'd have to give it, you know, a command that says, you know, priority, prioritize these in terms of like some goal, minimizing the conflicts, blah, blah, blah. And like, you know, I I I honestly I think I I think it could happen. You you know, you need to give it the right parameters.

Bryce

The real the real question is, do you think that the current tests are sufficient?

SPEAKER_02

Fuck, it'll add tests if they're not sufficient.

Bryce

I don't think uh while I agree that AI is a great tool, I do not think that it is at the point where um where we could let it formulate uh the like well, I don't think it's at the point where we could let it wholesale manage manage the development of software like CCC CCCL. Uh yeah, I don't know. I think we would have to codify more I think we would I think humans would need to codify more validation specs and requirements before that could happen.

SPEAKER_02

Why does a human need to do it?

Bryce

Uh because I do not think that current models have sufficient judgment to do so. While they may be while they may while they may be good at writing code, they don't always um like when I have when I have a model do a task, um, its first instinct about how to go about doing it is wrong frequently enough that I would not want to entirely turn over all responsibility for a large production code to it.

SPEAKER_02

What what are you using? Are you using Opus 4.8, 5?

Bryce

Um, any model, 5.6 soul or or any any frontier model.

SPEAKER_02

Uh I don't know. I uh yours and our my yours and my experience is is I I mean I'm I'm yeah.

Bryce

But the the topic that we're gonna talk about next has to do with like my existential, like what do you call it, midlife uh not midlife crisis, but just the I hit a point of like I do think our our experiences are very different here, and I do wonder if it's that we're working on on different things. Um like I I have been I have been working on getting the agent to merge um to merge the histoc algorithm into CCCL. Um and like GPT 5.6 Sol, its first PR attempt, it used a completely the completely wrong approach for uh the tuning policies. Like instead of adding a parameterized tuning policy that would parameterize, that would allow you to customize the tunings for each different GPU architecture, which any human engineer uh working on the project would know that that's what you're supposed to do, it just hard-coded in many places um the constants for the architecture that it was tuned for. Um and I had to tell it that no, you need to follow the existing design patterns. And I I frequently, almost always, the first shot of a design that it gives me has flaws that I need to give it feedback on. Is your experience not been that you frequently have to give it ex give it feedback? Or is your experience that it always gets things right on the first try? Or or rather, that is it has your experience been that you are able to set up a loop and that with a very high likelihood on the first time that you that you do the loop that it gets things exactly the way that you want it?

SPEAKER_02

Well, so um I'll dodge your question and answer it after I ask you a question. Why are humans able to do that correctly and not the agent? Because my guess is that it's uh I don't know if tribal knowledge is uh politically incorrect, but it's like it's written, it's it's knowledge that's not written down. And so how's the agent supposed to know about it? So that's like that's another human plot. Like why isn't that document? Why isn't that document?

Bryce

Connor, but that's what I'm that's why that's what I'm saying. That's why I said that we need to turn all of our design sense and guidelines and rules into machine checkable metrics, because that's even better than writing it down. Sure, we could just document all of it in the code base, but if we instead figure out how to distill the design principles into something that can be machine checked, then it's just a part of CI.

SPEAKER_02

Well, I mean I mean that's the thing as well.

Bryce

It's something that we can check deterministically.

SPEAKER_02

What you're saying is like machine readable to me is just like it's just a cop but like that should be documented anyways. Like having something that's not written down that needs to be like human to human, like verbally communicated, that's like a flaw with the that's a flaw with the process.

Bryce

Right, right. But but that's a first step. But I think even if you wrote everything down, I think agents would still get some things wrong. And that's why you need to have machine checkable tests for these things.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, I would I would I would say that like honestly, everything that like makes it difficult for the agents to like do things right are just like literally flaws of like the human the human process, and that if we were better at you know writing down and documenting, etc. etc., that like the agents the agents are would be totally able to and I just think actually this easy.

Bryce

So hang on, hang on, no, no, no, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Are you claiming that that agents do not make mistakes?

SPEAKER_02

No, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming though that they're better than humans basically at every aspect.

Bryce

If agents, if agents make mistakes, how are we going to check? How are we going to catch those mistakes?

SPEAKER_02

With like with like basically looping systems that monitor logs and like exception catches and stuff, and so they're just like self-healing. Like anytime there's some problem, they are able to like self-correct because they can monitor that something's gone wrong.

Bryce

And so, like you how am I going to how how will I know that a PR should be merged to CCCL?

SPEAKER_02

Uh how, sorry, ask that question again.

Bryce

How how should I decide whether a PR should be merged to the CUDA core compute libraries?

SPEAKER_02

Uh I mean, well, uh in an ideal world, you have like a bunch of automatic CI and GitHub action checks that like when they're all green, it's all good.

Bryce

But that that is what I am saying. What I am saying is that today, that is not sufficient. People have to do this code review process where they read every line. And the reason for that is because we have not sufficiently automated in CI all of the things, the design sensibilities, et cetera, that we care about. And that is why people are still doing code review, because the CI process is not sufficient.

SPEAKER_02

Uh yeah, I see what you mean. Yeah, and I guess I guess my meta point, or is it a meta point, just a regular point, that is that like the AI would have set that stuff up from the get-go, you know?

Bryce

Um, no, because I think that some of those things, um, some of those things require substantial research and innovation, which yes, we can do with AI, but they require substantial research and innovation um that has not been done yet in our industry. Uh we we we need my my my underlying premise is that we must replace the manual code review. We must take the humans out of the loop.

SPEAKER_02

I mean, I'm totally with you there. I I just I think we uh we we think we're at like different points on the curve.

Bryce

Um and uh yeah, but I don't I I don't see I do not think there are large important projects today that have the human entirely out of the loop. Uh let me let me make it more tractable. I do not think that there are large um software projects that have been around for more than five years that are automatically accepting like any AI PR without human review because they have so much confidence in their testing system.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, but that's because five years ago, like it was pre-AI. Like uh that's like a you know, I I promise you that there are companies out there that are like fully AI driven, um, we're like AI from the ground up, you know. Sure, are they massive software or like code bases? Like, well, probably not because they only have started in the last you know two or three years.

Bryce

But um but I think I think many of them still have humans in the loop at some point in the review process.

SPEAKER_02

I'm sure I I don't know if I agree with many. Uh if you look at the I'm sure like well, I don't know.

Bryce

We we'd have we'd have to do some kind of survey, but like can you can you let's you as homework, your homework is to find an example of an open source project that has the human completely out of the loop, that has been around for more like more than at least more than two years at least, I'll say. Uh it has to it has to be something that's been around for a while, uh, because that's the only way to understand like the software likes life cycle over time.

SPEAKER_02

Wow. I mean, what is what does that prove though? Like, you know.

Bryce

I don't know. I mean, what what's what's OpenClaw's contribution policy? I think even OpenClaw, they still have a human that merges the PRs.

SPEAKER_02

I mean, is clicking a button really like uh I mean, one of my my array box thing, like I click a button every couple days that says merge, but like I don't do anything other than that.

Bryce

Open claw has 2.1k PRs open. That tells me that their process is not entirely automated. If the process was entirely automated, there wouldn't be there would be maybe a hundred open. 2.1k PRs open means that there's like a backlog.

SPEAKER_02

I mean, I don't I don't know. I feel like this is like uh what are we what's the word? Like fallacy or something is like just because there's a human in the loop deciding what they want added or not added, it's not really like an actual human in the loop, like in terms of like coding and code review. Like you can make decisions at like a project level of the direction and the features uh and and stuff like that. But like I'm talking about like the the coding, the CI, the CD, all that stuff.

Bryce

I well, but I will again I will challenge you to find me an example of a large adopted open source project where they're accepting PRs without doing any code review today. By a human? Yeah, without without any human code review today.

SPEAKER_02

All right. I guarantee you that there's a bunch. So uh whether they're two years old, whether they have 50,000 GitHub stars, uh, I don't know.

Bryce

Well I I will I will if you're ch if you're challenging me just to find some open code some open source GitHub projects that uh have like non-human refused code peers, that's like they have to be important projects that are used by a large uh like a large base of users. Um I don't have a specific I'm not I I don't have a specific metric in mind. Uh you know, the I I I will waive the specific two-year requirement, but it needs to be something that's that's used in production.

SPEAKER_02

All right. My wife's about to get in the car. So uh well, she's not in the car yet. She's like 10 seconds away, and uh she may or may not want to be on the recording. We'll find out in a sec.

Bryce

I do have hello, sweetie.

SPEAKER_02

Would you like to be on the podcast? She shakes her head and says no. So she's gonna silently listen. Okay. We're recording ADSP from the car because uh Hi, hi Shima.

Bryce

How you doing? Hi, boys, I'm pretty good. I uh I I yeah, I hear you you're gonna be due soon.

SPEAKER_00

Yep, I'm 35 weeks, so we're not any almost any week now.

Bryce

Congratulations. Are you excited, scared? How does it feel being an almost mother?

SPEAKER_00

Oh, I'm really excited. Yeah, I can't wait. I'm super excited.

SPEAKER_02

You refer to our baby as a fetus? He was our baby's a baby.

SPEAKER_00

Okay, our baby.

SPEAKER_02

Do not insult my future son by calling him a fetus.

SPEAKER_00

Well, I think I think he has a fetus.

SPEAKER_02

By definition?

SPEAKER_00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

Be sure to check these show notes either in your podcast app or at adspthepodcast.com for links to anything we mentioned in today's episode, as well as a link to a GitHub discussion where you can leave thoughts, comments, and questions. Thanks for listening. We hope you enjoyed and have a great day.

Bryce

Low quality, high quality. That is the tagline of our podcast.

SPEAKER_02

That's not the tagline. Our tagline is chaos with sprinkles of information.