Is it? I remain unconvinced AI will replace Devs in the foreseeable but I don't think this article is passing comment one way or the other.
The way I read it TFA is claiming that the Devs who built the Natascha AI suite did solid work.
Contrary to prior reporting there really was an LLM based product at Builder in addition to their earlier business of a large pool of contractors cranking out apps on demand.
Real simple stuff. Luring a cow over near a bank and then pushing her down it. Pretending there's some lush grass in the gap between trees. Nudging each other into the electric fence, or into the gatepost when going through a gate.
Ideally you don't ever rely on CI specific automation tooling to actually accomplish anything and instead just use it as a dumb "not my dev machine" to execute workflows.
You should always engineer things so you can fall back to something akin to:
./scripts/deploy_the_things
Ideally backed by a real build system and task engine ala Bazel, Gradle, whatever else floats your boat.
It also means you are free to move between different runners/CI providers and just have to work out how to re-plumb secrets/whatever.
GH actions/friends really provide minimal value, the fact they have convinced everyone that encoding task graphs into franken-YAML-bash is somehow good is one of the more egregious lies sold to the development community at large.
Well, git ops might not be impacted on Github, usual Github outages tend to be through Actions/the site, not the actual git operations. Doesn't seem like you can use a local copy but you can use Gitbucket/Gitlab.
You can, but I don’t think it would make it appear on Google maps.
OSM requires attribution (https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guideline...), and I’ve never seen OSM attributed on their site (it does show third-party data providers sometimes, depending on zoom level and what part of the world you’re looking at, so it may do so for some parts, but the higher zoom levels seem to use only Google data)
Also: chances are your address already is in OSM, as you say it does show on Apple Maps, and Apple does use OSM data.
I'm currently implementing some OAuth stuff and reading a lot of RFCs and specifications. Came across this gem which really made me think "I bet I would come to regret writing that one"
How does OpenID Connect improve security
Public-key-encryption-based authentication frameworks like OpenID Connect (and its predecessors) globally increase the security of the whole Internet by putting the responsibility for user identity verification in the hands of the most expert service providers.
...
I can't tell you why any non-violent crime warrants a custodial sentence. It seems like civil penalties really ought to be enough deterrent and a much better recompense to society.
Who is the victim?
The person who bought the stock you knew was worthless or sold you the stock you knew was gold.
Why is insider trading a crime?
It's an unmanageable market advantage, if we didn't disallow it then people wouldn't play. The people who make the rules benefit from people playing.
It pretty much undermines the fairness of the entire market. If insider trading wasn’t a crime, the single goal of every investor would not be to find investable companies but to find insider information.
The stock market would cease to be an effective tool for raising capital.
It would be more akin to the crypto market where there are no such rules about insider trading and everything is pumped and dumped via influencers and degens acting on insider tips.
The article https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray does not include the word "controversial" and there is nothing in Categories at the bottom of the page so what exactly are you referring to? No, Justapedians do not think everything is controversial. We forked 6.5+ million articles from Wikipedia, and editors are starting to create articles, and clean-up the controversial forked articles that reek of WP's systemic bias in an effort to make them representative of encyclopedic content; i.e., neutral and objective.
Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
Really? Well, see if you can explain your position on Wikipedia which is a source Justapedia used to find controversial topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversia...
Justapedia affords editors an opportunity to neutralize those controversial articles because the big part of what makes them controversial is the lack of substantial diverse points of view. It's either WP's systemic POV or the material is rejected, and any editor who dares to change it will likely themselves groveling at one of the dramah boards, or swiftly topic-banned from that topic, broadly construed.
This sounds like semantics. Presumably GP means controversial in the sense that people argue about it, you mean non-controversial in the sense that it's well established scientifically. I think both of those takes are good.
No, you wish it was uncontroversial. Or it is uncontroversial within a carefully chosen subset of the society that agrees with the idea an its implications, but that's cherry-picking and does not actually mean it's uncontroversial (without qualification).
> Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
How can you say that? The idea isn't controversial, but somehow only teaching it is? That's pretty obviously not true: the people who object to teaching evolution almost certainly object to the idea itself. I'm pretty sure they also dispute the "actual underlying facts" (at least historically).
Evolution isn’t controversial across the many scientific communities and nations around the world. There is no rival theory poised to capture scientific energy around the world.
Exactly. You can accurately say "evolution isn’t controversial in the scientific community" (with a qualification), but you can't accurately say "evolution is completely uncontroversial [full stop]" (unqualified).
A course-grained "controversial" tag will either apply very broadly or be inaccurately used (out of parochialism or other bias).
If it weren't controversial, there weren't as many alternative "theories". This is what the term controversial means. It is no valuation about the probability of evolution being correct or of the existence of any other sensible model.
> Evolution is completely uncontroversial.
Perhaps it should be uncontroversial is what you mean, but it certainly isn't, which makes that statement wrong.
Controversial just means the topic to be in dispute. It is a question of semantics and precision of language. In that regard the flag on a wiki site is certainly justified.
Because that isn't comparable. Evolution is controversial because it collides with a lot of other beliefs. Particle physics and gravity generally don't, if only because people aren't familiar with the intrinsics...
All of genesis? Young earth specifically (unless Christian's god created the moon with initial velocity).
I've read an article from a Hindi that basically explained how their religion was much more science-proof than the monotheisms. Also, looking into Ramadan for weird reasons, I recently found an article about how the Coran was more scientific-friendly than the bible, with example from the new testament.
Both where cherry picked bull* but I should have kept the links, it was quite fun and I probably would have had more examples.
> unless Christian's god created the moon with initial velocity
If God can create matter and energy ex nihilo, why would He have any difficulty with setting a moon in motion to have a stable orbit? This feels like arguing that humans break the laws of physics every time we lift an object and throw it.
The way I read it TFA is claiming that the Devs who built the Natascha AI suite did solid work.
Contrary to prior reporting there really was an LLM based product at Builder in addition to their earlier business of a large pool of contractors cranking out apps on demand.