YouTube recently introduced UI changes. Google probably didn’t optimize for Firefox besides Chrome. Whatever they’re doing, it may be more performance on Chrome than on Firefox for technical reasons.

As a quality metric, “bad company”. If you can differentiate between hardware product and drivers, you can separate those metrics. But usually, and for most people, using the product also means using their drivers.

You can just take the L and say you didn’t see that the function definition that was “added” was just “removed” at the top.

That’s not what happened though.

Changing the indent of the def changes the definition. That’s my whole argument.

I don’t get why you say “of course”, agreeing with my point, but then “it was only the indentation that was changed”.

Do you have a comparison to other tools like Grammarly? Were you sometimes missing suggestions or linting rules?

as an open-source alternative to Grammarly

intentionally avoids including any kind of generative AI in any part of our processing pipeline

Isn’t that what Grammarly is all about, though? Be better than traditional spellchecking through LLM?

I assume Harper is entirely Rules based, then? Which inherently means limited to what rules where introduced manually and what the rules cover.

New hardware manufacturer quality metric: Number of frustrated user pledges per time since market introduction.

What I wrote. I wouldn’t want to do AI Thursday and kinda malicious compliance for a prolonged time.

I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn’t quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole “hasn’t been merged yet” is missing that it hasn’t even been created.

I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn’t quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole “hasn’t been merged yet” is missing that it hasn’t even been created.

An indentation change is a definition code change. And as I pointed out, it’s a py file, and Python is an indent-significant language.

So you’re using [] as an alternative function call syntax to (), usable with nullable parameters?

What’s the alternative? let x = n is null ? null : math.sqrt(n);?

In principle, I like the idea. I wonder whether something with a question mark would make more sense, because I’m used to alternative null handling with question marks (C#, ??, ?.ToString(), etc). And I would want to see it in practice before coming to an early conclusion on whether to establish as a project principle or not.

math.sqrt?() may imply the function itself may be null. (? ) for math.sqrt(?n)? 🤔

I find [] problematic because it’s an index accessor. So it may be ambiguous between prop or field indexed access and method optional param calls. Dunno how that is in Dart specifically.

The issue, presumably the PR (linked at the top of the issue because of reference).

Look at the code change. It gets inputs and loops over them and seems to do an in-place fixup. But the code indent is wrong, and it even changed the function definition of the unrelated next function. In Python, the indent-logic-significance language.

I assume they briefly showed the code on stage. Even then it should have been obvious to any developer. py file, messy indent, changes unrelated function.

Please correct me if this is the wrong PR.

I would make Thursday AI day and do everything with AI. And Friday is recovery day, where I discard everything that didn’t work, and do what I want, to recover motivation for long-term sustainability.

I wonder if and when they would notice a productivity difference. I certainly couldn’t and wouldn’t be able to do that indefinitely.

Makes me think used tokens, which is very easy to fake.

If I were in a malicious environment, I’d be interested in gaming the system, excessively producing AI code even if I never use it.

I understand the need for full detailed reasoning, but that legalese document is not approachable or accessible.

I wish they had at least given a plain language summary of the changes they intend to make. For full reasoning you could still refer to the whole document.

I guess I’ll trust the EFF in their interpretation.

Numerous invalid patents have been granted in the past, and had to be challenged to be corrected.
These suggested changes are horrendous for a just or sustainable patent system.
There may be opportunities for change or efficiency gains, but blocking and evading challenges in various ways is not a good approach. It excessively favors patent trolls which act maliciously and damaging to other companies, the economy and society at large.

Blender 5.0 Release Page

Page headline: “Hi Five” 🤭

Holy mother of donation banner on the blender website.

720p screenshot

Great writeup, good argumentation, and excellent sourcing, linking to external resources

Typo on “Free, Open Source Software does not a social movement make.” Presumably “does not make a”?

uuh, I see Zed’s been available for Windows for a month now. That has always been a blocker for me. I’ll definitely try it out.