JoRyGu

Brother, look at the first comment in the chain you replied to. It very specifically was about Claude.

AWS goes down catastrophically but are back up in minutes/hours most of the time (as long as they aren't down because Iran blew up their data center). That's obviously REALLY bad for certain industries, but I suspect for the vast majority of their customers it's not a big deal. We've been able to isolate the damage almost every time just by having AZ failover in place and avoiding us-east-1 where we can.

This sounds like something that could have easily been avoided.

I could easily see companies, especially enterprise-level companies, expect code that was generated with AI to have some level of ownership attributed to that AI. Whether a simple "Co-Authored-by Copilot" byline on the commit is the right way to do that is another question though.

How common is this that they would even care about it anyways? I've run Firefox exclusively for the last 2 decades and have never once run into a site that told me I needed to switch to Chromium for compatibility.

Maybe a case of really high profile companies doing RIFs while medium and smaller companies keep hiring?

Is there somewhere you'd recommend that I can read more about the pros/cons of TOTP? These authenticator apps are the most common 2FA second factor that I encounter, so I'd like to have a good source for info to stay safe.

I'm sorry, but this is selling good engineers very short. If you didn't nest your utils folder 8 folders deep, it seems pretty obvious that one should check the utils folder before writing another utility function. This stuff should also be caught in code reviews. Maybe the new guy didn't know that util function existed, but surely you did when you reviewed their MR? Obviously mistakes like that can happen, but I've found that to be the exception rather than the rule, even in some of the gnarlier codebases I've worked in.

Yeah, for sure. I wasn't asking from the framing of saying it's a bad idea, my thoughts were more driven by this seeming like something every other major player can just copy with very little effort because it's already kind of baked into the product.

Is that not something that was already possible with basically every AI provider by prompting it to develop learning steps and not to provide you with a direct answer? I've used this quite a bit when learning new topics and pretty much every provider does this without a specialized model.

Hardware-wise the peak is obviously the M-series. Ditching x86 while simultaneously nearly flawlessly emulating x86 apps via Rosetta - making the transition to ARM64 completely painless - was a landmark achievement.

You have literally worked yourself up into hysteria if you think Israel is in any position to invade Iran, even with US support.

Was just looking at their release strategy. This is being handled by people that have experienced the hell that is dependency management in the JS ecosystem. Kudos to them.

We use it for an application that aggregates data for consumption by several different teams that all consume different subsets of the data. When you have a pretty simple use-case it's really not that bad to get a decently functioning API off the ground, and because it's self-documenting we can spend our time on more mission critical work.

Because of course he's got a crypto grift going. Shocking.

It's still way too early to declare it just yet. It's still vastly inferior to their existing separated IDEs. I'm optimistic though.

Can you clarify what you mean? I'm not sure how you watched/read that and got "type system" out of it.

Shouldn't as in they might contain names against people's consent and that's bad, or shouldn't as in there is some process in place for people to submit their names and they derive the data from that process?

Coincidentally, difficult to understand and largely ineffective is exactly how I'd describe the FOSS virtual meeting software I've used in the past.