BigTTYGothGF

Good for Moonshot.

Test the LLLM against things you want it to do

I agree, it is ridiculous to ask an LLM to replace an artist.

Could you expand on what the dissonance is?

I read thru it and most of it is accessible to an undergraduate. As long as you remember what Sym{1,2,3} are (clearly explained in the text), and how a resultant works (many undergraduate textbooks will show you), how SL2 works (reasonably common undergraduate topic), and can figure out the bit about the dual space being the same as those differential operators, everything else is just basic (high school) algebra.

When did it become normal to talk about open source like this?

It's not normal today, but it's also not new, that kind of language has been around for a long time.

A quick bit of research proves otherwise, for example: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591464acadd7b0493427d3... and others as described here: https://aaml.org/wp-content/uploads/MAT109_1.pdf

The long-term trends don't exactly reverse under Democratic administrations.

Because they would have had to dig a little more to find trivia it gets wrong. They don't care about "which AI is the best for little facts about movies," they care about "what do people do when the AI gives them a response".

It seems perfectly representative of AI and AI users.

I feel like that should be considered acceptable

Not if they're married and their spouse also drives the vehicle.

kind of proves the point

I don't think it proves anything other than the wanted to work on something else.

Every minute spent tracking down a lady getting an abortion is a minute not spent tracking down a murderer or a rapist or similar.

And then we have a bunch of folks assuming they know better about C that its own authors?

Barthes aside, C's changed a lot in the years since they left.

The only safe program by this measure is the one that's never ran.

you could tell different brands apart from far away

This is just the tyranny of air resistance and fuel economy.

I wouldn't buy one either (it's been illegal in my country for ~150 years).

In both cases, you know what's meant by "chemicals" (the broad category of things like preservatives, colorings, and similar, that you find in lists like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number) and "sugar" (refined white sugar, corn syrup, and similar that are added to foods one would not traditionally expect to have that).

I think we're all better off with cocaine and fentanyl not available at local convenience stores.

This is in the same category of statements as "ACTUALLY, everything in food is a chemical".

Crony capitalism is just regular capitalism.

The enumerate is a better solution than the one in the blog post.

Many of my fondest memories of technology come from times past...

Is that because of the technology or because of who you were at the time?

It was a while ago (20-ish years?) and I'm forgetting the details, but it was RMS and I think the package was emacs.

95% of the infrastructure around you was built in a world prior to the sham obstructionist cudgel of "environmental impact studies" even existed.

Yeah and that's how we got a messed up environment.

If you were asked, would you have voted to allow the building of your own home, the infrastructure and roads around it, and the businesses whose tax revenue funds your local municipality you suddenly are so concerned about?

My town isn't perfect in those terms but it's probably about as good as possible, so yes I would have. Of all the places I've lived, tho, there's certainly lots of thing I would have opposed, given the chance, like all those highways.

What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs

This is the same FSF that in the past has refused contributions from people whose politics include "I would like this software to run on my windows/apple/other proprietary platform". They're extremely political.

can't

Won't, they call it malware: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/sysadmin/our-small-team-vs-million...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Prince_Andrew_...

I want development history to be squashed. I want to have a nice clean `git log` that I can look back thru and not see a mess of 'WIP' and 'fix' and other noise.

Unless you're saving every keystroke from your editor you're already squashing history, we're just arguing about degrees.

creating a branch starting at the problematic commit

Code always lives in a context, and when you're fixing a problem that exists in top-of-main the context of the fix needs to be top-of-main, not some commit way back in history. Also if you do it that way, you'd better hope that no later commit also touches that same line.

I then get people coming to me and complaining they can't merge

A team needs to agree on git practice in advance, and not have one wildcard go off and do their own thing.