This is exactly right and I love Linus so much for cutting through the emotion every time. All he cares about every single time is if the commit is good or bad. Thats how it should be.

Most tokens sold come from China today and open weight models, and most (EDIT) 42% of energy produced in China is from clean sources like nuclear or renewables. Don't blame AI for ethics or lack thereof in neoliberal capitalism and a lack of planning or regulations. China also has the most and smartest regulations on AI so far.

That's your managers fault then not ai itself if you can't use it how you want to

Fuck off dickhead.

I guess to each their own. I am so used to getting bash (emacs) keybindings in macos that it drives me crazy that they don't work in KDE and Xwayland apps.

I have a Compaq CQ61 as a Debian "server" thing from around 2008. Does my IRC bouncer, Navidrome and Komga. Works fine on that purpose. My daily driver is a Thinkpad T430, not sure what model year, at least a decade old, maybe more. Got it second hand. Works well for me, I can play Morrowind. Thats all that matters.

I'm doing all that, but it's not the same. I'm no longer writing code and it was my favorite part of the job. I guess I was lucky to have a job I enjoyed, now I join the 87% of people who hate their job.

Well please share with us your extremely unique, interesting and enlightening opinion on Ed Sheeran then. Because you're trying very hard to sound clever but you're just saying meaningless sentences.

I'd argue that Monte Carlo is a bad example here, and is an example of a deterministic tool.

You use a tool to create an outcome, you're looking for an answer or a solution that you can trust.

If you want to examine behavior of a system that has input variables across some known range, you could brute force it, try every single possible combination and wait a millennia. Or you use a monte carlo strategy, let randomness enter the simulation to build out a basic characterization. You want more detail? More confidence? Increase the number of runs. I can trust that if I increase the number of runs I gain higher fidelity, if the tool/strategy was non deterministic I couldn't do that

Not parent commenter, but no, not to the same degree.

The level of trust I have in a source greatly changes how I review it. If I know that I'm reviewing code from a competent developer, I'm going to see a for loop and look for why is this here, how does it play into the larger objective and if I'm happy with it, I move on. But if I don't trust the developer as much, I'm looking at far more like what data type is being used in the indexing, what's the break condition, can go off the rails into random memory.

Don't compilers have some guarantee of behaviours? I.e even if you don't know exactly what instructions and order the compiler generates there is a guarantee that it is computationally/mathematically equivalent to the statements you wrote. Otherwise it would be a pretty terrible compiler. That's a pretty big jump to writing instructions you don't understand, since LLMs can't make the same guarantees about a prompt/request.

Good.

So the tool YOU chose is NOT:

• standalone at the project level ✅
• standalone at the repo level ✅
• standalone at the source level (trivially shown with the libsystemd-shared.so dep without requiring looking further) ✅
• standalone/fully independent at the runtime level ✅

This and the sibling sub-thread where I mentioned presets show with actual facts how the systemd forced hegemony actually works, where it's not just a simple case of "they just have some stand-alone cli tools under their umbrella bro".

The project itself wouldn't try to (clumsily) dispute this either, since it's at the core of what they consider a selling point; interface unification and deeper integration with the system.

I know a grad student that does. Compiles it from source themself.

where you have to focus and review everything line-by-line

Do you not think all code deserves this level of focus?

bad bot

Assuming you didn't know what tools were used to write the code that you are reviewing, how would reviewing it be any different? You would still ask the human author questions about intent if that were not clear. The quality of their responses may or may not be impacted by their use of LLMs, but that is up for you to reason about as the reviewer, and it's perfectly fine to tell someone they are being a jackass for only sending slop to you.

My current laptop is a decade old. As long as you don't buy bottom of the barrel and use it to spec, it'll last. It is primarily a web browser that can play some light games. I've got other systems for modern games. A gaming laptop will be out of date when you do the setup, however.

No, I mean when you install android it doesn't include the evil google blobs by default. You have to do that as an additional step.

Surely the Linux kernel gets used by those same organizations too, in some way

I unironically use PowerShell on Linux. It's the only shell with sensible key bindings.

The definitions are always behind, and custom sources are still behind. The configuration sucks and that’s from a NixOS user. The IO latency is atrocious when set to watching the filesystem, and it’s generally unwieldy. The clamscan/clamdscan separation doesn’t make sense either. And it’s slow as hell parsing definitions.

I think that depends entirely on whether opt-in is legally required in a given jurisdiction but they’ll certainly try and use every dark pattern in their arsenal to do so.