you (rsc)

4 points · 12 comments · view on lemmy.world

12 Comments

pmjv@horp.sciops.net · 2 pts · 16d

how about we just call it 9front?

Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 16d

Yiiikes

pieguy@horp.sciops.net · 1 pts · 16d (3 replies)

I guess someone failed Bell Labs class

sl@horp.sciops.net · 1 pts · 16d (2 replies)

i never visited murray hill :/

pieguy@horp.sciops.net · 1 pts · 13d (1 reply)

Who's Murray?

sl@horp.sciops.net · 1 pts · 13d

i dunno but his sperm are irradiated from the murray hill men’s room

Hazzard@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 16d (5 replies)

Honestly… without more context, I think this is reasonable. Unlike a lot of lazy “I asked AI” responses, they asked Claude, looked at the result, submitted it properly, tested it, and are only asking for user verification (not giving a “works on my machine” type-response).

This is the kind of effort I’m missing when someone replies with “Claude said X”.

sl@horp.sciops.net · 1 pts · 16d (4 replies)

tested it?

Hazzard@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 16d (3 replies)

They specifically said it didn’t break anything, and that the fix “seems plausible”.

The first strongly implies they at least ran the test suite and ensured the application still ran, the second means they read the change and understood it.

All they’re asking the user for is verification on their specific setup, which is a great last step because even if you can recreate an error (which you can’t always), you can never guarantee that you’re seeing that error for the same reason a user is.

sl@horp.sciops.net · 1 pts · 16d (2 replies)

mind reading

Hazzard@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 16d (1 reply)

Reading comprehension

sl@horp.sciops.net · 1 pts · 16d

victim blaming

Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 16d
[ removed ]