Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

Senal

@ Senal @programming.dev

Posts
0
Comments
321
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Louis Rossmann taunts Bambu Lab by hosting banned 3D Printer firmware fork, dares $1 billion company to sue him — more creators pledge support and boycotts, Snapmaker donates equipment to embattled de

    Jump

  • Wait, i thought that technically correct was the best kind of correct ? i have been LIED TO.

  • Why I'm leaving GitHub for Forgejo

    Jump

  • don't mac/ios runners require an actual mac/ios device ?

    I don't do apple stuff so i'm not sure.

  • Removed

    Update on "Co-authored-by: Copilot" in commit messages · Issue #314311 · microsoft/vscode

    Jump

  • So the issue you have is with the wording, not the sentiment ?

    Then let's get those words in a form you'll understand.

    "so many other good tools out there that don’t actively and routinely introduce "features" and "options" that increase the potential surface area for attacks and bugs, often to introduce anti-consumer functionality to the detriment of user experience."

    To avoid confusion, i'm talking about Microsoft as a whole, their ecosystem in general and the list of easily findable examples of them doing sketchy shit to push ads, data collection and other anti-consumer nonsense.

  • We can't just call AI-generated code slop anymore

    Jump

  • The rest of your reply aside, I do disagree with one point in particular.

    Where is your linkedin or github profile showing projects before ~2022?

    A github public profile and linkedin history are not reliable indicators of comparative programming competence.

    I.e it's entirely possible to be a competent programmer and also not want to participate in self marketing or promotion.

    They are sometimes indicative of the soft skills that go along with being a programmer.

  • Android Sideloading: New Rules, Advanced Flow & What Users Need to Know (2026) - World Today Journal

    Jump

  • It isn't and this is the one of many replies in which you haven't provided even a single example.

    This is because you can't provide something that doesn't exist.

    Even if your reading comprehension was at such a level as to genuinely think there was an example of what you are saying in that text, you'd provide it.

    I can't see a scenario where you aren't trolling for engagement.

    I expect some personal attacks, continued feigned ignorance, perhaps some bargain basement deflection , all very standard and boring and that's OK, if that's your skill ceiling i won't hold it against you.

    But.. i'm willing to be surprised if you have something novel, perhaps some obscure fallacy I’ll have to look up, something that sets you apart from the basement dweller trolls, something noteworthy, perhaps enough to get you elevated to troll management?

    You got this, i believe in you.

    Also, i'll save you some time , a reply that doesn't contain a quotable example of what you've claimed will just be ignored, no more engagement for you.

  • Android Sideloading: New Rules, Advanced Flow & What Users Need to Know (2026) - World Today Journal

    Jump

  • citation?

    A single example is fine, i can't find any, but perhaps i'm missing something important.

  • Students are speeding through their online degrees in weeks, alarming educators

    Jump

  • I see what you mean and for jobs where deceit isn't an asset it's probably not a great idea to get caught lying.

    I will say though, having been employed, the ability to "gracefully massage" the truth is an invaluable skill in a lot of workplaces.

  • Students are speeding through their online degrees in weeks, alarming educators

    Jump

  • Cheating is absolutely a sellable skill.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Assuming you are asking genuinely, here's an answer.

    Q wasn't created as a result of V's(or P's) intolerance, it's a specialisation of a larger group, P.

    P and Q aren't mutually exclusive, you can be both.

    V can and do enjoy both P and it's subgenre/offshoot Q.

    If you don't understand in general why larger social groups might sometimes give rise to more specilaised subgroups or offshoots (for reasons other than exclusion) then any answer you receive is not going to make sense to you.

    Incidentally, the same explanation works for the cooking show example, as it's the same basic premise.

    I'm not the person who replied to you but I'm fairly confident that person was mimicking your phrasing with an example they thought was simpler for you to understand, in order for you to see how it sounded incorrect.

    It seems you didn't get the context of that, which is probably why it seemed like an odd reply.

    in contextual translation:

    If television viewers were accepting of cooking then why did they have to create a subgenre of cooking shows?

    becomes

    In the same way that cooking shows exist as a sub-genre of TV shows in general without requiring broadcasters to have first banned cooking on TV , queercore can exist without requiring punk to have first been intolerant of it's LGBTQIA+ members.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Condensing english prick comedian?

    Probably Ricky Gervais

  • EU age verification app announced to protect children online

    Jump

  • The difference is in the potential for creep.

    The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.

    AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who's identity is verified in the app.

    What's to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it's been issued ?

    As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said "over 18", you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.

    I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.

    Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn's weren't widespread enough to be a problem.

    Skip to now and they've got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn't and can't work the way they want.

    A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.

    Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.

    I'm not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.

  • Linux lays down the law on AI-generated code, says yes to Copilot, no to AI slop, and humans take the fall for mistakes — after months of fierce debate, Torvalds and maintainers come to an agreement

    Jump

  • Linux lays down the law on AI-generated code, says yes to Copilot, no to AI slop, and humans take the fall for mistakes — after months of fierce debate, Torvalds and maintainers come to an agreement

    Jump

  • Yes, i get that, copilot is like opencode or cursor, though perhaps with less general access to models.

    There was a reply

    Copilot? You mean the AI with terms of service that are in bold and explicit: “for entertainment purposes only”?

    followed by

    I suppose GitHub Copilot is meant, which is a different thing.

    i was asking why github copilot is different in that context.

  • Linux lays down the law on AI-generated code, says yes to Copilot, no to AI slop, and humans take the fall for mistakes — after months of fierce debate, Torvalds and maintainers come to an agreement

    Jump

  • Ok, so there are 70-81 copilots, github is one of them.

    Why is github copilot a different thing in the context of the reply that was being responded to ?

  • Linux lays down the law on AI-generated code, says yes to Copilot, no to AI slop, and humans take the fall for mistakes — after months of fierce debate, Torvalds and maintainers come to an agreement

    Jump

  • Different how, isn't github owned by microsoft ?

  • I just tried vibe coding with Claude

    Jump

  • If you're stuck at review you aren't seeing 10x development, you're seeing 10x code generation.

    This is especially important because without the review/test/deploy part of the pipeline you aren't actually seeing any progress towards business goals.

    Once you do get these parts sorted, you can then look at what multiplier you're seeing.

    That's not to say there isn't an improvement in your workflow, just that you can't say with any certainty what kind of improvement without measuring the end to end.

    It might turn out that the rest of the pipeline is way easier , in which case your multiplier will be higher, it might also be much harder, in which case the multiplier will be lower.

    I'm not taking shots, i mean it seriously, especially if you need to report any of this to the rest of the business.

    edit : In addition, if it turns out that review is going to be a bottleneck you can get extra resource pointed in that direction which will benefit the workflow overall.

    another edit: i would consider correctly managing the expectations of those you report to as a vital skill.

  • had this convo just yesterday 🤦‍♀️

    Jump

  • I used effectual equivalent for a reason.

    I did say it was somewhat hyperbolous but there are real life examples that are possible.

    Something like extended bullying directly leading to suicide, lies with the intention of causing harm or death.

    Calls to violence that lead to deaths that otherwise wouldn't likely happen is a good example of one that can be technically correct but difficult to prove.

    Intentionally telling someone a door leads to safety when it actually leads to a spike pit is effectually the same as stabbing them yourself.

    Are those examples good enough for an answer?

    Im looking for how the idea holds up at the logical extreme so I can understand the bounds of the theoretical context.

    There doesn't have to be a good answer either, some ideas only work in a limited boundary and break down at the extremes.

  • had this convo just yesterday 🤦‍♀️

    Jump

  • I know its a hyperbolic example (though entirely possible in the context you describe)

    What would be your thoughts on speech that had the effectual equivalent of murder?

    There's no traps here im just interested in the thought process behind the context you provided.

    Side note: if verbal violence is possible then it would probably track that there are degrees of violence, much like the physical equivalent.

    If that's true the argument that you shouldn't regulate subjectively heavy violence because "who here hasn't physically hurt someone?" Isn't a reasonable as it sounds at first glance.

    For the record, Rowling is a shitbag, the potter books are mediocre and the actors were the best thing about the movies.

    None of that bias is in the foundation of my questions though.

  • Alright let's see pictures of your super nice rack-mounted, professionally installed labs. I'll start 🙃

    Jump

  • Custom printed.

    The front rack grills, keystone panels and thinkcentre mounts are from a website but all the other printed parts are custom.