It has little to do with time on first glance, at least to me I read the name as a gif manipulation library. If it were named jiffy or similar it might be slightly more reasonable.
Comments are as brittle as visual testing, perhaps even more so when you can stop referencing a class without tweaking the comment accidentally or otherwise.
Traditionally I open a README.md in the dir the application lives in after I configure something I will open my browser history, and dump every link I clicked into the file.
I then copy paste a choice selection of my shell history into the file.
This is the bare minimum. It's easy to do, takes like 5 minutes, and you will be happy to have it in 8 months. I would make the argument that anyone who tells you to do anything else can suck it. Do the readme first, any "better" documentation second.
Getting Into the habit of doing this matters more than a good documentation system. You will be lazy and try to get around to documenting something later. Don't let it be later. Shitty link dumps are still gold mines for your future self
Git is designed as a permanent, historical record of text documents. You don't "clear" it out by deleting stuff, committing, and pushing. That stuff still exists, even if you change commit history it's going to stick around in the reflog for a long time.
GitHub has a maximum of something like 10GB of storage available. That being said, I think your described requirements don't actually match git. If you're just publishing messages publicly (even if encrypted) then you can do the same thing with a simple http server.
Honestly it's not even that. Gitoxide exists, is permissive, gitbutler pays for work from the maintainer of gitoxide, and it's not even like gitoxide is adverse to AI.
I think I take issue with the idea that it's the "chat" interface that makes people shut off their brain and stay in that groove. I feel that the answer is more the very nature of LLMs being one of our attempts to get AI to pass the turing test. Continuing the conversation is such a core part of what an LLM is beyond the UI. If it made you think, you wouldn't believe it to be a human.
We use Ruby at work, for a team I'm only tangentially involved with, and I'm not a fan. I'd be curious to know what a company that uses it as their primary language looks like. It seems like there's a lot of funky edge cases especially in templating that have bitten us.
Has it really been 10-15 years since Ruby peaked in popularity? I never really paid much attention but I feel like time is a fiction.
I'm not appealing to authority. I'm pointing out that they're not a bot. As I said in my first post, I wouldn't claim it's entirely human generated, I have no idea one way or another. What I said to start with and now is that it's worth addressing the Blogpost on its merits not on its use of emdashes.
It's crazy to me that you think I'm even saying there smart/clever/whatever and could do no wrong. The only thing I'm appealing to is the evidence that they exist.
The author has been a CPPCon presenter, worked at Bloomberg, and has a GitHub history going back at least to 2022 where they were contributing to LLVM. This isn't coming from their website but from the actual websites.
Based on their history and experience that's public on their profiles from an era pre ChatGPT, I think you are overreacting and making a fool of yourself.
It's pretty scary how we live in an era where semi competent writing gets assumed to be AI and you refuse to fact check yourself before shitting on them as being not real.
Honestly it's a pretty well written and explained article. I hesitate to say that it's entirely human generated, but I certainly would try and judge it for its content before just writing it off as slop.
Personally I think the author overstates the practicality of using counters for serialization, as the ordering of source code is also a very cosmetic thing and tweaking scenes ruins the save format. There's no possibility for backward compatibility either in such cases.
Insanity I tell you. We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's uses cases.
I'm trying to understand where this rage and hatred is coming from. This isn't some canonical interchange format here.
It has little to do with time on first glance, at least to me I read the name as a gif manipulation library. If it were named jiffy or similar it might be slightly more reasonable.
Comments are as brittle as visual testing, perhaps even more so when you can stop referencing a class without tweaking the comment accidentally or otherwise.
Traditionally I open a README.md in the dir the application lives in after I configure something I will open my browser history, and dump every link I clicked into the file.
I then copy paste a choice selection of my shell history into the file.
This is the bare minimum. It's easy to do, takes like 5 minutes, and you will be happy to have it in 8 months. I would make the argument that anyone who tells you to do anything else can suck it. Do the readme first, any "better" documentation second.
Getting Into the habit of doing this matters more than a good documentation system. You will be lazy and try to get around to documenting something later. Don't let it be later. Shitty link dumps are still gold mines for your future self
Hasn't this been a thing for a long time? Personally I don't eat more than one "proper" meal a day unless I'm being physically active.
I think it's fine. I don't like cooking that much and it's less effort.
Git is designed as a permanent, historical record of text documents. You don't "clear" it out by deleting stuff, committing, and pushing. That stuff still exists, even if you change commit history it's going to stick around in the reflog for a long time.
GitHub has a maximum of something like 10GB of storage available. That being said, I think your described requirements don't actually match git. If you're just publishing messages publicly (even if encrypted) then you can do the same thing with a simple http server.
I think it's a really poorly thought out idea.
Honestly it's not even that. Gitoxide exists, is permissive, gitbutler pays for work from the maintainer of gitoxide, and it's not even like gitoxide is adverse to AI.
There's no point to what they're doing.
I don't think this is ai written. It seems like a very stream-of- consciousness diary rather than an attempt at making anything understandable.
They said that people shouldn't be accepting the price increase. What point were you making that was confirmed?
Where does steady work at a 9-5 make you rich.
I think it's more an indictment of your media bubble than the own you think this is.
So he didn't literally say it word for word, but the vibes were there.
I think I take issue with the idea that it's the "chat" interface that makes people shut off their brain and stay in that groove. I feel that the answer is more the very nature of LLMs being one of our attempts to get AI to pass the turing test. Continuing the conversation is such a core part of what an LLM is beyond the UI. If it made you think, you wouldn't believe it to be a human.
We use Ruby at work, for a team I'm only tangentially involved with, and I'm not a fan. I'd be curious to know what a company that uses it as their primary language looks like. It seems like there's a lot of funky edge cases especially in templating that have bitten us.
Has it really been 10-15 years since Ruby peaked in popularity? I never really paid much attention but I feel like time is a fiction.
I'm not appealing to authority. I'm pointing out that they're not a bot. As I said in my first post, I wouldn't claim it's entirely human generated, I have no idea one way or another. What I said to start with and now is that it's worth addressing the Blogpost on its merits not on its use of emdashes.
It's crazy to me that you think I'm even saying there smart/clever/whatever and could do no wrong. The only thing I'm appealing to is the evidence that they exist.
The author has been a CPPCon presenter, worked at Bloomberg, and has a GitHub history going back at least to 2022 where they were contributing to LLVM. This isn't coming from their website but from the actual websites.
Based on their history and experience that's public on their profiles from an era pre ChatGPT, I think you are overreacting and making a fool of yourself.
It's pretty scary how we live in an era where semi competent writing gets assumed to be AI and you refuse to fact check yourself before shitting on them as being not real.
Honestly it's a pretty well written and explained article. I hesitate to say that it's entirely human generated, but I certainly would try and judge it for its content before just writing it off as slop.
Personally I think the author overstates the practicality of using counters for serialization, as the ordering of source code is also a very cosmetic thing and tweaking scenes ruins the save format. There's no possibility for backward compatibility either in such cases.
It's hard for me to imagine which direction it would end up going when right now the quality of AI output is so varied.