I’ve never been able to program in anything more complex than BASIC and command line batch files, but I’m able to get useful output from Claude.

Chatbots being deemed useful in tasks by people unqualified to make those judgments is a running problem.

verify with every output it produces.

I agree that you can get quality output using these tools, but if you actually take the time to validate and fix everything they’ve output then you spend more time than if you’d just written it, rob yourself of experience, and melt glaciers for no reason in the process.

prompt to restrict it from auto committing, auto pushing, and auto editing without explicit verification

Anything in the prompt is a suggestion, not a restriction. You are correct you should restrict those actions, but it must be done outside of the chatbot layer. This is part of the problem with this stuff. People using it don’t understand what it is or how it works at all and are being ridiculously irresponsible.

repetitive sections

Repetitive sections that are logic can be factored down and should be for maintainability. Those that can’t be can be written with tons of methods. A list of words can be expanded into whatever repetitive boilerplate with sed, awk, a python script etc and you’ll know nothing was hallucinated because it was deterministic in the first place.

user tests.

Tests are just as important as the rest of the code and should be given the same amount of attention instead of being treated as fine as long as you check the box.

They’re the same people that copied code from stack overflow that you had to tell them how to actually fix every PR. The difference is the C suite types are backing them this time

producing subtly broken junk

The difference between you and people that say it’s amazing is that you are capable of discerning this reality.

I haven’t used forgejo but I imagine you’d set a runner to trigger on merge or push to your main branch that does any build steps (if needed) and copies the artifact to the directory you’re serving

Split keyboards, especially when the angles are adjustable, can let you get your hands/arms/elbows/shoulders positioned in a sustainable way. Getting a chair/desks where you can get the arm rests aligned well is good too.

Do you mean the ability of jellyfin to access the internet or the ability for network access to jellyfin.

If you mean the second then you need to map ports https://docs.docker.com/get-started/docker-concepts/running-containers/publishing-ports/

If you mean the first then something is wonky, but also using host mode still doesn’t negate the point. You’re still only allowing the processes in the container to access only directories you’ve specified and isolated them from the other processes on the system. It’s about limited the blast radius if an exploit against your network application occurred

If the dependency static links the library and doesn’t use structs or classes defined in it for its interface then it is fine. If either of those are not true it is asking for trouble

Isolating network services from the rest of your system is a good thing

Arch Linux for desktop. Whatever for servers, usually ubuntu, though I’ve been tempted to use arch then too when dealing with out of date software.

1. Software is always up to date
   • instead of old with security backports which have always kind of skeeved me out
   • so upstream issue systems are relevant
   • so I get new features without having to wait
2. When I have to turn a wrench the wiki and forums are amazing
3. I feel like I control my system

Dash isn’t bash compatible. It’s strictly a posix shell

As if any @firefox fork, including @librewolf, has the ability to even maintain the Gecko engine - let’s all switch to forks or Chromium and see the dying days of adblock.

I’m addition to that, mozilla participates in the standards committees. It is important that they do, and I’m not aware of a single entity that could substitute for them.

What nag are you talking about?

1. I haven’t seen any sort of nag that occurs before activating a link preview
2. After activating a link preview there is a cog button that takes you directly to the settings where you can disable link previews entirely, in case you used it by accident or tried and decided you didn’t like it.
3. The key points part of the UI has a toggle to hide it, and it stays hidden for every subsequent link preview, even through restarts of the browser.

No. They are not disabled by default, but none of them run in the background. You would know if you were using them.

I agree with not wanting link previews, but there is some misinformation here:

when you hover over links

It is a 1 second hold or a context menu option.

is sending page content to ML models

Unless you’ve specifically enabled the key points feature, it just shows the open graph tag content (https://ogp.me/). This is also what is used to display a card when you put a link in a chat app.

If you do enable the key points feature, it is not sending page content over the network like you imply.

It uses a local model and it doesn’t even download that model until the first time you ask for the key points.

I encourage you to keep complaining about things you would like you be different, but you should really keep your complaints factual, because you weaken your points when you mix them with misinformation.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/use-link-previews-firefox

if you build a standard and no one follows it. then it’s wasted time and money. Meta, Google and Microsoft

Google, Microsoft, and Apple also already account for the vast majority of desktop OS installations

the issue is, VPNs hide your ISPs assigned IP. till now there has been a higher difficulty in differentiating traffic from the same IP with similar metadata. the more user specific metadata that’s added, the easier it is to differentiate devices and users.

And you think that the data they get being “is an adult” or “is a child we’re not allowed to collect data on”, per the API part of the specification is useful for that?

If Microsoft and Google are also angling for this why is it only meta lobbying?

I think meta has some scheme to profit from this stuff, possibly also at the expense of Google, Microsoft, Apple in addition to consumers.

Mandating thing like this by law is bad. But having a standard on its own is not.

I agree with this. Here’s where it gets weird. All these bills stem from meta lobbying. Why do they regulation in this specific thing when they’re totally capable of forming a standard committee or something with Microsoft and Google?

Codeinabox specifically seeks them out to post them here to push their narrative.

The puzzle didn’t disappear; it moved to a higher level of abstraction.

LLMs aren’t a layer of abstraction. An abstraction allows you to pretend there is nothing under it (except when it leaks). LLM coding is more like having a pair of hands that you control indirectly and aren’t innately aware of what was been produced.

LLM coding assistants produce faster results whether anyone is being paid or not,

This is still not true when you account for externalities such as that the “faster” people haven’t taken the time to actually understand what they’ve submitted and have produced more tech debt.

If you don’t bomb that hospital someone else will do it