I didn’t know this, and I’m sure a lot other people don’t know this and that’s why they fork - to have their own copy of the repo, thinking they have full control over it.
I have forked projects in the past and IIRC i had to send a request to be disassociated from the original repo, otherwise all pull requests default to the original repo which is annoying.
Interesting, I had assumed that turning down temperature to 0, or hardcoding a seed would make LLM inference deterministic.
Especial after watching this video https://youtu.be/J9ZKxsPpRFk
So you say its not random, and now you do a 180 and say that randomness is a good thing?
I should have known you are a troll
So, in your learned opinion, it’s deterministic?
You still need a software engineer to review the code. It’s naive to think that randomly generated code will work, and by “work” i mean not just do what it’s supposed to, but also handle edge cases and be secure.
Even if you rebase you can still recover the original commits until they are garbage collected. You are generally safe as long as the .git directory isn’t deleted, in which case your whole history is gone anyway.
Sounds like a flawed workflow, if this didn’t go through at least code review. Was it committed directly to master?
Curious to know what kind of system relies on hashed not changing? Technically the hashes don’t change, but a new set of commits is made. The history diverges, and you can still keep the old master if you need it for some time, even cherry pick patches to it…
I was hoping for this. I was not let down.
Unusable for me on Fedora. I’m unable to watch movies or videos over network from NAS, have to copy it first
This gives legal backing to any lawsuits against ai companies.
Currently everything on the Internet is assumed to be free. Robots.txt is just a suggestion and not legally enforceable. I assume RSL is supposed to communicate terms of use explicitly, like a EULA.
It’s like open source licenses on github. Sure you can access the source, but here are the rules you have to follow. Yes, a lot of companies still ignore it, notably GNU licensed software has been abused by the likes of Apple.
My robot vac just moves the bowls under the fridge by himself
If you trim that bush, it’ll seem larger
Yes, and it’s good that programming languages are still experimented with, otherwise we’d still be writing assembly.
This kind of seems like a solution in search of a problem
Not like it’s a bad things. A lot of inventions started this way.
I already tried. Linux has some issues with basic things like a working sleep mode and a working thunderbolt port at the same time on my laptop.
Makes perfect sense. If you’re checking if a collection is empty you don’t need to know its exact size. Getting the size can be very inefficient in collections like linked lists or trees, if you have to follow all nodes. To check if it’s empty, all you need fo know if at least one item exists. If one does, there’s no point counting the rest.
People who don’t understand the difference will probably not understand the difference between passing a list and passing an literator/generator to any() .
It’s just how pythonic code is written. All python developers know that not and bool can indicate that variable is either empty or null. They will also use the in operator and other python specific syntax.
That’s not an error, it’s a warning. It shouldn’t break anything…
Because it breaks a lot of things. Whether it’s good practice or not, running module code at import time may be expected to initialize some code, setup listeners, build classes etc.