That's the role of the commit title, with tags if you follow https://www.conventionalcommits.org/ standard.

99% of commit description will never be read. Only the title is usefull when you scroll to a git log.

But, for the remaining 1%, it means you ended up doing a git blame, git bisect or any funky stuff like this to troubleshot a bug. And when you find the commit that introduced the regression, written by some dude that leaved the company 5 years ago and see a description like "Add the whatever method in whatever class that do the stuff explained by the doc written in the file"... Well, thanks bro. But why did you do this ?!!!

A commit message is not supposed to be a summary of the code. It is supposed to gives information that you cannot deduct from the diff. Like:

• Is there an attached ticket ?
• Does it produce side effects ?
• Is it a quick and dirty fix just before the release ?
• What are the consequence of the modification ?
• Why you choose this approach instead of another ?
• Why are you not able to add regression test ? etc ...

The first guy at Cursor that create the feature to generate commit message from diff is just a fucking moron that don't understand the role of a commit message.

I'm still convince that polish notation was the biggest mistakes of Lisp. At some point, the guy who create Lisp language decide to get rid of 2 centuries of mathematic convention just because of a technical limitation that last for maybe 2 decades.

Oh, and no one to talked about (1- x) ?

I find it strange to explain how everything works but keep the implementation closed. It gives a "Trust me bro !" vibe, so I understand that some people might be reluctant about your project.

Anyway, using git as backend storage is cool. I love it when tools are repurposed for uses other than their original intent ^^.

Funny idea but... what's the point of showing a technical demo without the source code ? The added value of this idea relies on its implementation, not on its result.

Could be a comment indeed. It's hard, or even impossible, to clearly decide where to put an information. There are some guidelines, but no absolute rules. Commit messages, comments, API docs, tickets, wikis, etc... all of them serve different purpose.

• Comments are here to explain an implementation detail when code cannot be self-explanatory. They live as long as the code live (and are unfortunately not always updated). They are used when a developer arrives on that line of code.

• Commit message are here to explain why something has been added/removed. What happen before, what happen after, why this solution was needed. They are tightly couple to the diff and generally don't contain generic high-level information (unless commit is a design or architectural modification). They are used by the reviewer and 5 years later by someone that do a git blame to understand why this line was introduced and what happen if I remove it.

• API Docs explain the behavior of an API, as seen from the outside. They should not explain the implementation, nor explain in which case and which part of the system they are used.

• Tickets explain a user request. They detail who request this and for what purpose, but only from user point of view. No implementation detail.

• Wikis are here to cover your ass so you can say "See, it was written in the wiki !"

I'm really sad that after 20 year we still have to explain that commit message is not a summary of code modification.

Commit message is here to gives information's that are not visible in the diff. The context, the side effects, the decision that were made, etc... All of this cannot be generated by LLM.

Woops, forgot the link. I've fix it, thanks bro !

It works. You have hammers and nails. Then, someday, a dude come with the new Hammer23, with better ergonomical grip, colored high density 3 sided head, and so on. Yeah, cool, but I still have the same nails to nail, and my current hammer do the job perfectly. And I drilled a hole in my workbench ten year ago that have the perfect size for my current hammer.

Asking to cyptography experts. Would it be possible to flood a discussion with AI generated slope ? The discussion itslef would not be encrypted, but would be lost in millions of other generated discussion. A "private key" mechanism would be use to identify which message are part of your real discussion.

I suppose this would be compliant with Chat Control, as message are not encrypted. But without private key, you won't be able to identify which message are the good ones.

I wonder how many people get this ref nowadays.

Here is my "Tuesday evening 15min before leaving work analysis".

Before COVID, IT market was stable. After COVID, there was WAY too many IT offers. Then, market collapse supposedly because of AI:

(Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IHLIDXUSTPSOFTDEVE)

In blue line, actual curve. In green line, what should have been IT market without COVID and AI.

For IT market to get back to equilibrium, red area should be equal to blue area. If I do some patchwork, I ended up with this:

So my conclusion is that it indeed slowly starting to recover and should be back to normal ~mid 2027.

Time to go home, bye 😁

I'm wondering if it is that simple. Does the observer needs to have a "consciousness" ? Is a photon colliding with an atom is consider as the observer, or is it the scientist that lighted up the atom which is the observer ?

If we takes Schrödinger cats, when does the measure happen ? When the sensor detect the radioactive particle ? When the cat realize its death ? When the box is open ? When someone actually looks inside the box ?

That's true questions, I'm trying to understand quantum physics since years, but the sources I find are either too simple ("The cat is both dead and alive, It means there are parallel universe !), either too complicated (directly jump to equations).

My favorite one remains the Piet.

And also my favorite programs is How to compute Pi in Piet, where result precision depend on the resolution of program image 🤣: https://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/piet/samples.html

I use AI for small, atomic, stuff that don't bring any intellectual value to spend time for.

Like "Typescrit. Find smallest element in an array". "Python. Simulate keboard event to avoid computer going to sleep mode". Or copy/past error message because I missed an import and I just want to know which one.

I also use it sometime for well identified algorithm that could be interesting but are not the core of the problem. Like "C#. Clustering algorithm to group points together in a point cloud".

The generated code is catastrophic in term of performances/memory, but it's good enough 80% of the time.

But eveytime I tried to use AI for higher level stuff, or that require several interdependant concepts, it ended up into hallucination pit.

• I have this problem
• Cool ! Use solution A !
• Doesn't work
• My Bad, use solution B !
• Doesn't exist
• Indeed ! For this problem you should apply method A which will work !
• (-_-)'

In this case, I don't think silverbullet is the right tool. It's not like if an "admin" can hide all the complexity for end users by creating its own frontend. The complexity will still be visible to end users. As long as someone can edit a page, he will see the lua script behind.

If readonly, it just look like other wiki. The https://silverbullet.md/ site is itslef written in silverbullet. You can have a look to video to see how it works: https://silverbullet.md/Manual

Out of the box, there is no really "Admin" portal and "User" portal. It may be doable, but I cannot describ a workflow. I use it as a small wiki for my homelab because I like overcomplicated tool. I'm on neovim btw 🤣

It can. Silverbullet can do quite anything, that's where it's name comes from. You can code your own logic directly in markdown through lua like code, get pages tags, generates tables etc... but the tool is very "hacky". Either you love it, either you hate it. And if you are not a hairy nerdy guy, you will hate it.

Looks like a fork bomb with extra steps.

That’s a gross oversimplification.

Off course it's a gross simplification ! It's a 1 line comment regarding one of the most fundamental theorem of modern mathematics. If some mathematicain came here, he would also say your comment is still a gross oversimplification. Stop nitpicking.

You’ve previously assumed that the universe is a computable formal system.

I'm paraphrasing what I understood from the 3 books I read. Turing machine is deterministic. If given the same inputs, you have the same ouputs. But Quantum mechanics is not. First, because you cannot put a quantum state exactly in the same state that another one (No-cloning theorem), then because quantum result are intrinsectly probabilistic and are not the consequence of a mechanical procedure. So, univers cannot be fully simulated by a finite Turing machine (and even maybe by an infinite one ?). This has been recently proven, and the proof rely on Godël's theorem: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22950

How would a quantum computer even work if it weren’t described by a formal system?

Seems like there is still no formal system to fully describe Quantum Mechanics. There are mathematical models, but there are models, not exact description. And even Feynman said it may be impossible to fully understand quantum mechanics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SczWCK08e9k

I'm putting conditional everywhere because I'm not a physisist. If I'm wrong, please put sources.

Then, there is the Orch OR’ theory which state that consciousness arises from quantum processes. This theory is currently heavily criticized, so for now it's more a question of belief than proven statements. That's why I started my first comment by:

"'I'm quite convinced AGI cannot [...]" and not by "AGI cannot [...]"

I'm quite convinced AGI cannot be achieved on a Turing machine, whatever its size or complexity.

Arguments against it are mainly based on Gödel's incompleteness theorems and are described in books like "Minds and Machines - Alan Ross Anderson", "Consciousness in the universe. A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory" or even "Mind" from Alan Turing himself.

I'm not claiming I understand all the arguments written in these books, but it seems that Gödel's incompleteness theorems also apply to universe and consciousness. To briefly summarize Gödel's incompleteness theorems, it states that a formal system cannot describe everything. There will always be thing which are beyond his reach. A Turing Machine is a formal system. This means that a Turing Machine will never be able to simulate our universe or replicate consciousness, and thus to replicate a human brain.

However, it could be feasible with Quantum Computer that are not based on formal system.