“Great-grandmother” is another example where the great=big meaning still shows up…

Did not expect that kind of law change from such an aggressively Conservative government. I guess, there is ample reason to put the NIMBYs into overdrive, though…

Don’t think, Grok was a thing yet back then…

They mean that when people can’t afford real food anymore, they’ll be buying this Kraft stuff. That’s what Kraft can capitalize on…

“City limits” sure is one of the signs of all time.

I do feel like AI art has entered the boomer stage of the hype cycle, as in Trump et al use it prominently, so the kids start to think, it’s

.

But I also feel like the blog post conflates two aspects. It’s not just about AI art, it’s also about every goddamn brainfart being turned into AI art.
No one needs to see a t-rex giving a thumbs-up or similar.

That’s what people are tired of, for sure. In the before times, the person would’ve chuckled at the thought and then forgotten about it. It took long enough to create an image of it, that they had time to realize that no one cares.
That barrier is now removed, so you definitely see posts online with just the dumbest brainfart turned into pixels.

I had to start reading that three times over, because I saw they mentioned “Canadian” and just assumed the angle brackets are a joke in reference to the Canadians in South Park:

“I rewrote Kafka in COBOL”

Oh man, it’s late here and I thought to myself “How would you rewrite a Kafka novel in COBOL?”… 🥴

(In case, anyone actually isn’t aware, they’re talking of Apache Kafka.)

In general, though, yeah, I also find it cumbersome how much noise these toy projects add. Actually usable software involves so much more than just dumping some code into a repo.

Nevermind that even just useful software requires you to not rewrite existing software in a worse way. You need to actually come up with something novel, which requires tons of design decisions.

Letting the LLM auto-complete those is a lot harder, because 1) you need to actually describe design goals rather than just telling it “do it like Kafka”.
And 2) because those design goals will be wrong every so often, and/or the detail decisions that you outsourced to the LLM. And then you still need to painstakingly find out what those detail decisions were, so that you can correct the decision.

Not sure, if you’re actually looking for an explanation or rather just want to rant and/or hope for dating tips, but maybe still helpful to be aware of:

With your specific expectations, you’re somewhere to the far left or far right, whichever way you want to read it.
For example, this graph could be applied to alcohol consumption, with 0 on the left and lots on the right. Then you’re on the far left.

The Y-axis shows how many people exist in that range. There’s some median alcohol consumption, which is going to be in the center of this diagram, where most people are. At 0 alcohol consumption, there’s very few people, because it’s an extreme.

Obviously, this simplifies a lot. In a real survey, there’s probably actually somewhat of a bump at 0 alcohol, because certain religions prohibit consumption.
But yeah, in general, you’re hoping for relatively many extremes, so the number of people that match that are quite low. You will naturally get magnitudes more romantic interest from Average Joes, because there’s just magnitudes more of them.

As somebody else already said, try to find groups that naturally attract folks from the extremes that you look for, like outdoor sports groups.
Online dating, as problematic as it is, can also be rather good at finding very specific extremes.

You can’t generally just add license terms to an open-source license. At that point, it is not anymore an open-source license, but rather your own custom (a.k.a. proprietary) license.

As in, there’s a list of license texts that are approved by the Open Source Initiative and you don’t really want to deviate from that. (There’s also a list by the Free Software Foundation for the more freedom-loving among us, which is rather similar and also valid.)

This also has larger legal implications. There’s been lawsuits for open-source licenses, to which you can point and tell a company to fuck off, if they do a similar violation. As soon as you start adding own terms, there can be contradictions and just generally surface to attack.

In particular also, most code exists in the form of libraries. If you’re a library and you want users, you do want to stick to the well-known licenses, because no one wants to deal with each library having different custom terms (considering you can easily end up using hundreds of libraries in an application).

Did you maybe accidentally turn on the “drunk” mode at the top?

A bucket of bytes. 🙃

The old “tomatoes are not a vegetable” is pretty frustrating. They are a vegetable.

In botanical terms, the concept of a vegetable does not exist, which is where tomatoes are classified as fruits. But in culinary terms, vegetables do exist and tomatoes are classified as such.

I just find it frustrating, because I believed that garbage myself at some point, and I thought, I was smart for knowing that.
Just one of those examples that you can easily spread misinformation, so long as you make it sound plausible.

deleted by creator

I imagine, this is more about software devs than sysadmins. Sure, you’ll hire a couple more sysadmins to help with the massive user growth during the pandemic. But especially combined with loans basically being made free in the same time, it’s suddenly worth hiring a bunch of devs to build the Next Big Thing™.

Once those loans start costing again and the user numbers fall off, you quickly have lots of devs that you can’t find tasks for, that are worth doing.

A flork of cows? I hear, you have to license their works…

Also worth mentioning that universities generally see themselves as research facilities first and foremost. They teach students, because they want to get the next generation of researchers.

Sure, they’ll also do job training to some degree, because it’s a good argument to get more funding, but yeah, just not their primary goal.

You’re right that there is a risk, that rebasing introduces compile errors or even subtle breakages. The thing is, version control works best, if you keep the number of different versions to a minimum. That means merging back as soon as possible. And rebases simultaneously help with that, but also definitely work best when doing that.

There may be reasons why you cannot merge back quickly, typically organizational reasons why your devs can’t establish close-knit communication to avoid conflicts that way, or just not enough automation in testing. In that case, merges may be the right choice.
But I will always encourage folks to merge back as soon as possible, and if you can bring down the lifetime of feature branches (or ideally eliminate them entirely), then rebases are unlikely to introduces unintended changes and speed you up quite a bit.

I don’t work with merges, so maybe I’m way off base, but I thought they meant, they’re working on another branch or fork, then merging the base branch into theirs every so often to get the newest changes, and then that creates multiple merge commits, which they can’t squash at the end…?

I’m not sure, about that last part, but the rest, I’ve definitely seen with contributors that didn’t know to work with rebases (and unfortunately we’re on GitHub, which only half-assedly supports working with rebases by default).

You might prefer working with rebases + fast-forward-only merges, if you want merge commits to be squashed…

(As in, there won’t be any merge commits. Your PR will look as if you forked, then coded real fast, and then opened the PR before anyone else pushed anything.)