Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
147
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Also: January is not always the 1st month, sometimes it is the 0th.

    1/1/2026 can be both Jan 1st, and Feb 1st.


    For the downvoters, try it in your browser's terminal:

     js
        
    let test = new Date("1-1-2026");
    
    console.log(`Year: ${test.getFullYear()}, Month: ${test.getMonth()}, Day: ${test.getDate()}`);
    // Prints -> Year: 2026, Month: 0, Day: 1
    
    // --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
    
    // test.getFullYear() returns the year, but test.getYear() only returns the number of years since 1900
    
    // test.getMonth() returns the month, but the first month is 0-indexed
    
    // test.getDate() returns the day, 1-indexed, but test.getDay() returns the current day right now and not the day of the date object
    
    
      
  • it’s good at answering questions like that

    Are you sure about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtBI2BvPKBQ

    Remember: if you don't know enough about the topic in question to grade its answers then you're not judging its ability to answer accurately, you're judging it's ability to convince you.

  • Ah yes, the ol' people are annoyed at the actions I chose to take, so I'll call it a joke defence

  • It's for the best.

    Learning how code works is better than getting an LLM to produce convincing looking code without anyone having an understanding of how it works.

    LLMs just teach students to paint themselves into a corner without them even realising why bad things keep happening to them.

  • How is that my problem

    Well let's break it down...

    You thought:

    Yeah, it’s called .deb

    Was an acceptable response to:

    Because it’s nice for devs to have a single package type to build per OS


    Your problem was your stupidity.

    But now your problem is everyone knowing about it.

  • More like “why the fuck would I walk all the way across the city now that I own a car”

    That's a bad analogy.

    Using an LLM for coding gives you an initial speed up with the trade off being skill atrophy, and a build up of cognitive debt in the project.

    A better analogy would be the Greek government before their national debt crisis. It would have been better to invest in themselves, not lie about their own finances, and not kick the can down the road. But they kept lying and kicking the can down the road because it was easier in the short term. Of course, we all know how that turned out in the end.

  • They published a release without release notes.

    The release notes came later.

  • Why not find a way to automate this,

    Why not find a way to automate every single change that the vscode team makes that may break something?


    Or why not let users do whatever?

    Ultimately, users can do whatever.

    But when they need help, they come to me.

    I have a recommended list of settings for things that should already be defaults, to guide them away from footguns, and to prevent themselves from needing my help in the first place. But I also sometimes need to go around with a critical (usually temporary) list of changes for when a vscode update truly borks something up.

    My concern was potentially needing to go around the office once a month for those critical fixes to once a week.

    This is why I suggested multiple release channels. Have a weekly release for developers who are okay with the trade-off of more frequently broken setups for newer features faster, and have a monthly release for developers who want more stable environments.

    It'd be a lot easier for me to run the weekly channel to be kept abreast of any changes, and I can support other coworkers on a monthly cycle.

  • Not exactly,

    They said that they APIs were copyrighted, and that the way that Google had reimplemented the API fell under fair use doctrine (the original work was still copyrighted and they were allowed to use it without authorization).


    As for using an LLM to reimplement a program, you're going to end up with a derivative work which can only be created/authorized by the original copyright holder. If you don't have the authorization, you are infringing on someone else's copyright.


    If however, you used an LLM to read a program's source code, sort each word alphabetically then output the result, you're going to have something that while based on an original copyrighted work no longer functions as a program. It has been transformed to such a degree that it is considered a transformative work, and thus falls under the fair use doctrine.


    TL;DR: Simply getting an LLM to regurgitate source code back out to you does not remove the licence of the original source.

  • Why the fuck do their help videos have motion blur?

    What's next? Shaky cam?

  • CSS has been considered turing complete for a long time.

    So this isn't a shocking revelation, but it is cool.

  • Fork.dev on Windows and Mac

    • GUI using native APIs, no electron
    • It's free the same way that sublime text and winzip are. It asks about once a month if you want to pay and you can keep clicking "I'm still trying it out".
    • Normal git cli is powerful but with a terrible UI with terrible defaults.
      • To use the best commands you need to add a ton of flags to get what you want, or add a whole bunch of aliases and port them between machines.
        • e.g. git log vs git log --graph --all --remotes --decorate
        • e.g. git fetch vs git fetch --prune --all
        • e.g. git stage -p vs nothing (git cli still doesn't have a good way to specify lines correctly, only hunks that can't be split properly)

    Fork.dev is just what you get when the defaults are set up correctly by default, with more powerful control over staging, and with automatic branch/stash backups whenever your doing risky actions.

    The only thing it doesn't have built in support for is git log -S for when you're searching for a specific file or commit and don't know the file or commit, but know a substring in the commit itself. But it doesn't matter since you can add that as a custom command into fork.dev

  • I’m just not going to watch

  • One of the possible reasons was too much sun power and not enough demand. Solar and wind are unreliable.

    No.

    The issue wasn't that there was too much generation, or that it is unreliable.

    It was a grid issue, it wouldn't have mattered what generation was used (solar, wind, gas, nuclear, coal, etc...).

    Don't be mislead by everyone who jumped on the coal bandwagon a day after the incident before we even knew what the cause was.

  • Unless you live in the Arctic Circle, it does in fact work in Winter.

    You provision enough solar so it still works in winter, then sell your excess in summer.

  • Don’t most countries offer subsidies for photovoltaics?

    They do, but they also keep subsidising black energy too.

  • The nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years isn't going to be a problem.

    It can be used to make betavoltaics.

    We might actually run into the problem where we don't have enough nuclear waste and we might need to spin up a reactor or two to keep making RTGs (for space) and betavoltaics.

  • Every German energy problem is entirely down to political self owns