I don’t fully believe this is purely an AI agent. Not after the moltbot incident raised how many humans where responsible for the posts on it. It just seems to be an attempt to make LLMs seems more autonomous then they actually are. It may have been written by an LLM, but I bet it was directed by a human trying to stir up drama.

This sounds all well and good. But I find in practice it never works very well. Too easy to gain a conflict which then messes with the stash (things remain in the stash and need to be dropped if you remember to). I always found it a pain to manage.

These days I just commit everything to master. When I start work on one feature to realise I need something else or to refactor something else first the I do that work, patch commit the changes, create a branch and checkout a new worktree, cherry pick the changes and push that branch to create a pull request. Then continue with the previous work while I wait to get the previous work merged.

Have a script which basically lets me do all that with a single command. And I never need to manage the stash. The only time I use the stash is with a rebase or pull etc with the --auto-stash flag. Which pops things off when it’s done anyway. The stash only really works for very temporary stuff like that.

Basically they don’t. It is the scheduling pinning background processes to a subset of the cores leaving others free for foreground tasks that is what helps.

The E cores just give a convenient way to split them. They could have done the same thing on intel macs or any other computer that does not have e cores.

The big benefit to e cores is they are more power efficient for tasks that don’t need performance.

— Lost work productivity (5 days × $150)

The way I read this is they cannot do ANY work without AI. Maybe you should consider if locking yourself into a tool that is so unreliable (with nothing in their terms of service) if you cannot do any work without it is the right choice? Rather than just demanding compensation.

KiB was defined decades ago… Way back in 1999. Before that it was not well defined. kb could mean binary or decimal depending on what or who was doing the measurements.

You have picked some weird hills to die on there.

for x in list:

This is fine. Many languages now do it. The extra brackets around a for or if dont really add any clarity or make things easier or harder to read. This is the type of thing you just get used to and prefer what you are used to. You get over it quickly.

Why would you provide a way to type parameters but don’t enforce it at runtime?

This is a bit stupid, but really is legacy reasons for it. Since it didnt use to have static type declarations and wants to remain somewhat backwards compatible it needs to ignore them at runtime. But as a JS and PHP developer you should be used to this. Both do the same thing as python here with types (well, TS for JS and the many other attempts at getting types into JS). So it is weird that you are singling out python for this behavior.

Why so many different ways to declare an array-like structure? Tuples, Sets, Dicts, Lists?

DIcts are not array like here. Tuples sets and lists are all common is many languages as well. PHP is a real weird case here given everything, even arrays are effectively a dict - that is a strange language design feature. But Java is way worst for different types of array types in the language.

I’m mainly using it because of interoperability, easy to setup, i

What? I hate setting up python projects. Each one wants to use a different dependency or version manager. Yeah you might have python on most systems but they are all different versions and python is famously terrible at backwards compatibility. It seems every few versions they throw something in the breaks some existing scripts so you really need a version manager for things. Which is more complex setup and management of things. There are far too many different tools to help you with this and fetching dependencies which means if you work on lots of different projects by different people you have a hodge podge of diffing tools you need. It is a complete mess.

Personally I hate python as a language, but you have picked some minor points that IMO dont really matter or that the other languages you use also suffer from. There are far better things to pick from that are far more annoying in the language.

Why not both?

You cannot do that analysis with one sample. Why pick one day? That is an arbatary amount? Pick the 1 hour or minute that the CVE was released and you will find rust might be responsible for 100% of CVEs, Take a Week or year and that number drops dramatically. Pick the next day and that drops to 0%. You can select any % you want if you change what time period you are looking at.

The fact that there has been one cve in 5 years of rust in the kernel is a bigger tell. There will be more rust CVEs, and each one is going to be big news as they happen so rarely.

A library cannot add new fundamental things to a language, or, possibly more importantly remove bad ideas from a language.

The article makes a point to say these features are for library writers to help them write simpler APIs for inexperienced users to use. But misses the point of different languages have different footguns that inexperienced users can trip up on.

They really want you to know that HashiCorp, an IBM Company is now owned by IBM. Looks like they have gone over that readme with sed.

Great, now people will read that as ‘cold pizza is heathy’. If it makes any difference is will be marginal. Not eating pizza is still vastly more healthy overall. Eat pizza if you want, but don’t be fooled to think cold pizza is good for you.

Email support was the bain of my existence. I forgot how many misconfigured system I came across decades ago that would fill up their filesystem with logs from crons in the root mail dir. Such a stupid default setting. We have vastly better methods for monitoring systems these days then firing off an email when a cron runs.

You can also easily see when the job last ran, if it was successful and when it will next run. As well as just trigger the service if you want it to run now.

Inertia also accounts for time and popularity. The longer something has been around and popular the more inertia it has and the harder it is for something to change it. Back in 1985 things had a lot less inertia then they do today - C and C++ have been gaining it constantly for 30 years since then.

I find most people don’t create good unit tests. They create them too small which results in them being fragile to change or near useless. They end up being a tray for future you not a love letter.

The number of times I have refactored some code and broken a whole bunch of unit tests is unreal. These types of tests are less then useless. If you cannot refactor code then what is the point in a unit test? I don’t need to know that if I don’t change the code under test it doesn’t break… I need to know that when I change code my assumptions still hold true.

We should be testing modules as a whole using their external API (that is external to the module, not necessarily the project as a whole), not individual functions. Most people seem to call these integration tests though…

5 years is optimistic. More likely 10-20 years at least. Established languages have a lot of inertia and it takes a very long time for that to change.

Why wrap it in a function at all? Why not just put the if at the top of the file?

Crafted in Japan, iPhone Pocket features a singular 3D-knitted construction that is the result of research and development carried out at ISSEY MIYAKE.

It’s just a knitted tube… Basically a iPhone sock.

Think I am going to start calling all my socks 3D-knitted to make them sound cooler.

iPhone Pocket in the short strap design retails at $149.95 (U.S.), and the long strap design at $229.95 (U.S.).

… Seriously… They charge way to much for such simple things.

While true and some will do it for that reason, I bet most do it simply because the friction to forking is so low.

Some might have an intention to work on it but then don’t or might start looking at it in detail then give up or get to busy or lose interest.

Others might just click it to save it for later.

And don’t forget all the people that click it by accident.

It’s not like it is a big investment to click the button.

Probably something to do with their main package deleting the pacman lock file so it can run a nested pacman update command… Which means two pacman instances running at the same time and nothing stopping other ones after that nested one has completed.