nine_k

Is it content-free? I don't think so. Is it hard to read? I don't think so either. Is it incorrect? I hope it's not %))

Does it sound like a typical LLM-generated text? In many areas, it does. But why would I care? This is not expected to be a piece of literary art. Equally, the pictures illustrating it are not artistic masterpieces, and aren't expected to be. And even the letters in the text are not carefully handwritten by a human but machine-generated.

Get used to it, and get past it. It's not worth the attention.

It's almost like there is another half of the language missing, the one which describes a schema to validate the config against.

> just removed the structure / syntax.

But they added syntax, such as unit specifiers for time.

And some syntax, like YAML bare strings, or XML entities referring to external resources, has to be removed.

Instants are important if you migrate something, like TLS certificates, data flows, etc. ISO-8601 is widely adopted, unambiguously interpreted, human-friendly format for that. I see no reason to not have it.

Breaking a lock still costs approximately the same, whether the lock is protecting a small barn or a huge hangar. A large number of small but reasonably tough (not unbreakable) targets makes the payoff per target smaller. This necessitates target selection, and chances of being deliberately skipped grow for an average target.

Are RGB and HSL color models all broken and useless? Yes, I know their limitations. But of all graphical software I use daily. only GIMP supports LCh, and using it is pretty unintuitive.

I see how position-anchor and stuff are coll for complex layouts, but they have poor support on low-power mobile browsers, and, frankly, are not that useful for a minimalistic CSS framework. If you want complicated layouts with non-obvious anchoring rules, you're not the target audience.

Cascade layers are very useful for complex designs with many independently added stylesheets. They would be great to have. OTOH again, if you need this level of complexity, you're likely not the target audience of a pico-sized CSS framework.

I would say that a minimalist framework should make judicious use of CSS3 features, and not try to be excessively clever. In reliable engineering, being smart often means avoiding being clever.

SO was invented as a Q&A site, where human experts might answer specific technical questions, in a precise, preferably provable way. This is what machines now do well enough.

But there's a need to talk to human experts, learn their opinions, personal experience, non-obvious bits. E.g. I enjoyed asking certain questions at Software Engineering and Emacs SE sites. Sometimes I just ended up talking with a maintainer of a specific package I had questions about. This is something Claude and ChatGPT cannot easily replace, and maybe something that may keep certain SO communities alive. (Unless Reddit eats the remnants of their lunch.)

I assume the policy was written by rational, reasonable people, with a practical goal in mind: to prevent "AI slop", that is, dubious-quality, high-volume contributions by people who don't exactly understand how their PR works, and how the project works, but "computer says yes" because tests (which they also do not understand well) seem to pass.

If a submission (PR, bug report) is high-quality, and the person behind it is responsive and clueful, so that the useful parts of the submission can be taken, and problematic parts, fixed, then it does not matter what process has produced the code. It could as well be a Boltzmann brain [1].

Given that the author of the contribution actually got a grip on the problem, and on the solution, the limitation of "no AI use" is no longer load-bearing. Not only might it have been counterproductive — it's also unverifiable in practice. It becomes absurd, akin to a demand that the text must have been edited by Vim and not VSCode. It must be noted that a misguided policy may indeed force the contributor to delve in the depths of the process of PR creation, and showcase every manually undertaken step in an attempt to prove that no AI was involved. Ironically, it is no secret that many less scrupulous participants might leverage AI to imitate just that. It must be noted though that the decision ultimately belongs to the project maintainers.

(The above paragraph was hand-crafted for your and my entertainment.)

In short: by default I respect the authors of the policy and hence assume that they enact the policy for reasons that are rational, not religious.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Go ahead, use all the LLMs in the world for finding bugs! It's not different than finding bugs by fuzzing, sitting with gdb, or receiving a revelation in your dream.

But then use your own brain to understand the bug, its implications, maybe ways to fix it. Again, use whatever tools, as long as your mind forms a clear understanding, which you can operate on independent on any LLMs or whatever.

The problem with "LLM bug reports" is that the submitters run a machine tool to find something that looks like a bug, but have a poor / no idea themselves what the issue is, and whether it's really an issue. It's easy to flood maintainers with such reports. The "no AI" policy pushes the responsibility of doing proper assessment onto you, the submitter.

If you can use LLMs to produce a bug report with the quality of assessment equal or above that of a diligent qualified human bug reporter, godspeed.

I totally don't care about refresh rates above 60 Hz. I do not enjoy but can tolerate even 30 Hz.

What I care about is resolution, color fidelity, color gamut, viewing angles, (anti-)glare, even how quickly the monitor wakes up. I don't play competitive FPS games, I do coding, graphics, and video work on my monitors.

My choice was copper sulfate + table salt + aluminum wire. Acids were hard to come by, but copper sulfate was easily available as a treatment for plants, and did not need such careful handling.

Will birthday balloons be filled with hydrogen instead? They would have a much stronger pull!

It should be relatively easy to add slightly angled connectors. It should be also not hard to make the key PCBs non-square.

Most income gets reinvested; the goal of modern large corporate accounting is to show a huge income, growth of sales, and near-zero profits. I suppose that the large revenues are also at least partly due to financial engineering, through structuring of subsidiaries, etc. Hence wages, which are real costs, look smaller compared to the large amounts of money sloshing around as huge revenues.

Is the story worthy of being on the front page? I assume that being already famous is not a prerequisite.

But the large majority of texts is now typed, not handwritten. I'd optimize a writing system for fast, easy, error-resistant reading. The Latin script reads easier than this, despite its known problems, maybe because Quickscript lacks the 27 centuries of refinement.

If I were to pick an existing script, that would be either Hangul or Tengwar (with vowels). Tengwar already has an English mode, and Hangul would likely need a few adjustments, following its general principles.

> it doesn't make sense to have more than one company string a wire to every house and business.

Not necessarily so. In cities it is quite normal to run 2-4 optic fibers to most buildings; my building in Brooklyn has 2 different fibers and a cable link. Equally, there are 2-3 national mobile providers which cover most of the entire US.

In the suburbia this breaks, or course.

I know. The post I was answering to spoke about predatory companies that privatize the air and water of the world we were born into, or similar. Apparently it was edited to read more sober, which is good.

I get it when there's an obvious natural monopoly, and an alternative is just infeasible to build.

I don't think it applies to electricity in many cases. If there are investors in building new electrical capacity, then it likely means that the area is underserved, and the prices are naturally higher. The government apparently did not build what the market is ready to pay a premium for.

The original Edison's electric company was private, and for-profit. It started selling electricity in 1882. I wonder how soon would a government-owned company manage instead.

Were you born into a world with electricity naturally occurring in sockets?..

Is the code crap? Is it optimized for shitposting? Is it called so to show disdain towards the service formerly known as Twitter?

This is where a human with a discerning taste and wide knowledge of the field should notice it during a review, or at least instruct their agents to check for that. If such a human is still employed in this capacity, of course.

It very much depends on how you generate it, from prompting to test suites, but most importantly, your attitude. The extra security costs you time and money.

There are still folks, many of them, who think that time to market is everything, and anything beside it should be ignored. "It compiles? Ship it!" is a phrase from 1990s; LLMs just make this approach much easier. We will have plenty of machine-generated software with the security posture of a colander hit by a buckshot.

Also, grids and flexbox solve so many previously tricky layout problems. Animations obviate a bunch of small JS.

I sometimes wish that CSS were reduced to the "good parts" and made simpler through it, but I realize that it's infeasible.

It does. It's the difference between "be my guest" and "catch me if you can". Currently we have better luck catching, but there's no promise that it should stay this way.

Golf as a sport is competitive, very much like boxing or chess. It's human vs human; a machine doing a hole in one would ruin golf no more than the invention of a wrecking ball machine ruined boxing.

Mathematics is a fundamentally cooperative match vs reality. Many mathematicians, AFAICT, saw their key skill in manipulating a wide range of highly abstract notions. Now machines just got too good at this skill, and they can work 24/7. This may feel terrifying for some. Others would bet that machines coöperating with humans will be more successful than pure machines, so they feel empowered. What's beyond doubt is that the entire field is being shaken.

Those in an acute need of an abortion are most often those in dire circumstances: victims of a rape, those who somehow forgot to use protection (e.g. due to being drunk), or, worse, not educated about protection in order to "save their innocence". Most of the general population is affected much more rarely, so an abortion ban hits the most vulnerable more.

With handguns, it's similar: the people most intent on obtaining a handgun are often people who have an intention to use it as an attack weapon: violent criminals, or people planning a violent revenge. They care least about breaking (some more) law, and, if handguns are banned, obtain handguns with a much higher probability than an average law-abiding citizen (police officers are below 1% among general population). So the most vulnerable groups have the least chance to protect themselves with a firearm. (Though, truth be told, a pump-action shotgun is a much better defense tool if you defend your house.)

How does this compare? Do people get addicted to spending money on LED headlights until they go broke?

This is so absurd, and reproduces the idea of flying cars from sci-fi and comic books of 1960s and 1970s so directly! And can attach to a wall or ceiling, for bonus points! I think it will be met with a huge demand from well-off people who dreamed about such cars in their childhood. (If it delivers on all these promises, of course.)

Yes, Elixir, of course; thank you!