I've personally only ever heard the term "dotfiles" used in the context of a collection of customized config files. To be honest I can't remember ever hearing a term used for .* files/folders in general, outside of maybe "hidden directories"? Granted, it could also just be that we're existing in different bubbles.

Loosely yes, but I rarely see anyone expound on it beyond "It's bloated and therefore bad". I also rarely see specific criticisms outside of that like journalctl being slow or using a binary format for log files.

I don't care for Ubuntu myself, but I think it's disingenuous to paint it as just preconfigured Debian. Honestly, if that's all it was I don't think I'd dislike it at all.

This is by far the most nuanced critique of systemd I've ever seen. I don't fully agree with its conclusions personally, but I think it makes a lot of good and valid points about its architecture and its flaws. It feels like such a breath for fresh air in comparison to the most vocal anti-systemd types who vaguely and angrily gesture at "scope creep" and refuse to elaborate further.

I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or not and that makes me uneasy.

Ironically enough, "Like you potatoes?" Is essentially how the question would be asked in modern German ("Mögen Sie Kartoffeln?").

This is so divorced from reality that it's frankly insulting. I "believe" in it because I've gotten good empirical results, not because I put blind faith into it. On the contrary, I'm extremely skeptical of anything it produces. And yes, I can vet every line of code. I'm skilled at what I do. I know how to do code review, whether it's written by a human or a machine. I can judge code and architectural quality or whether the root cause it landed on is accurate.

More often than not, the work done by the LLM is effectively the same as what I would have ended up with anyway, except instead of taking an hour or two to step through all the layers of the application to find the root cause I get an answer in about 5 or 10 minutes. How do I know it's not slop? Because I can read the code it references, understand the exact reason that the bug occurs, and fix it myself and watch the bug disappear.

I've been on the internet long enough that not a whole lot tends to get under my skin, but you asserting that I lack the ability for critical thought and just blindly trust the LLM output because I'm incompetent and don't know what I'm doing is beyond insulting. The irony is that you're the one applying your preconception to apparently anyone who disagrees with your dogmatic view. It's called post hoc rationalization: AI is obviously useless; therefore anyone claiming it has utility is doing so on blind faith and isn't applying critical thought because otherwise they couldn't possibly have come to that conclusion. I would suggest you reflect on the way that you've approached this dialogue, but the level of arrogance on display here tells me that you almost certainly won't.

Also, because I expect you to point and say that this is evidence that I'm some rabid AI zealot frothing at the mouth to defend the tech: I have no absolutely love for AI companies and I don't have a serious stake in the actual tech beyond it being a part of my workflow (societal/economic/environmental concerns notwithstanding). I don't care about it any more than I do the literal physical hammer in my toolbox. I just think you're a condescending asshole for telling me that actually, I only think it's hammering the nails in because I've put my faith in the hammer and I'm too oblivious to tell otherwise.

This is just... objectively false. LLMs aren't miracle machines, but they're capable of performing certain tasks well and can be very useful in the right context.

I'm sure that you'll paint me as an AI shill incapable of independent thought for admitting this, but since starting a new job this year I've used LLMs most every day for software development tasks. It's excellent at catching mistakes and tracking down root causes that it would take me sometimes several times longer to find manually. The latter literally saves me days to weeks in the context of broad refactors, where there are hundreds or thousands of opportunities for me to make a typo or miss a case.

And no, I'm not blindly pushing "slop" into the product. I consider myself good at what I do and I'm capable of vetting every line of work that it does and recognizing when it's low-quality or misses the mark in some way.

Again, I'm not claiming they're miracle machines. They're subject to their own limitations and certainly aren't suited to every task. But to claim they can't be used for "anything useful" is completely disconnected from reality and, at its core, simply dogmatic.

In what universe does "LLMs are good at some programming tasks now" make someone part of a pro-AI cult? This is the exact kind of black-and-white dogma you seem to be upset about.

Good point, I guess I rescind my argument.

As much as I can't stand AI fanatics, I think some of the anti-AI rhetoric (especially on Lemmy) can be just as dogmatic. OP didn't make any "extraordinary" claims. LLM agents have actually gotten remarkably good at many programming tasks, in particular tracking down bugs, and some of the things they're able to work out are genuinely impressive. At the end of the day it's another tool, but it can be a powerful one in the right context.

That's not to say anything about the environmental, social, and economic issues surrounding the tech and the industry. Obviously large companies are acting completely recklessly in all of those domains and I don't intend to justify that aspect. That said, I think it's disingenuous to frame OPs post as "making extraordinary claims" and it detracts from legitimate (and IMO mostly unimpeachable) arguments against AI.

There's a foreign tax credit up to a certain amount, so for most people you wouldn't end up owing anything to the US govt if working abroad.

Moreover, this is a breach of trust between the reviewer and the author. Our assumption when we review is that we're talking to a real person who wants to do their best work.

I think this is a really excellent point and gets at a general feeling I've had towards LLM-generated PR comments for a while now. I can understand the desire to use LLMs to generate changes (my company pushes AI super hard and it genuinely is a helpful tool in many cases), but to delegate discussion of those changes to an AI model feels extremely antisocial to me. I don't really like the idea of vibe-coding in general, and this practice really distills down everything I don't like about it with an added layer of deception.

Random thought, but I think this is the plot of one of the Jimmy Timmy Power Hours.

I do kind of take issue with the presentation here. Pointing to the number of countries without access is rather misleading because it gives a country as large as Pakistan the exact same weight as somewhere like Tuvalu. In terms of population, the list of blocked countries is I believe around 30% of the world population. That's definitely still significant and IMO worthy of a headline on its own, but the way this article focuses only on the raw number of countries feels disingenuous for the sake of being able to showcase a big attention-grabbing number.

This is pretty much what OpenAI tried to do with Scarlett Johansson (or more specifically, her voice) before they got hit with a C&D. Of course, this was after they had already tried to work with her directly so the intent was pretty obvious in that scenario.

They absolutely can, at least under the right circumstances. I accidentally scratched my dog's eye least year while playing with him, and as a result he developed a pretty bad case of pink eye about a week later, discharge and all.

It fortunately cleared up pretty quickly with some prescription eye ointment, which _un_fortunately required a fairly pricey urgent care visit to basically say "Yep, it's pink eye".

Better security, better fractional scaling, and proper support for mixed refresh rates and VRR, to name some of the bigger reasons.

On the contrary, the borrow checker is basically the first thing you learn about when writing in Rust as it's the primary "gimmick" of the language. Anyone writing a non-trivial program should have at least heard the term before, even if they don't fully understand how it works.

The borrow checker is a feature of Rust's compiler which places strict constraints on ownership of data to guarantee memory safety. It adds a lot of friction to writing Rust code if you're not experienced with the language (or sometimes even if you are). OP refers to the "language restriction of Rust", seemingly talking about the borrow checker, but has never even heard of it. It's kind of like someone claiming they didn't vibecoded their C++ project but having no idea what the STL is.