Not a vending machine. It’s clearly the third member of Daft Punk with a snaggletooth.

The next row would be “boss fires you thinking Claude can maintain the codebase.”

Guy in the front row: “hey, walk forward the same number of steps as there are R’s in ‘resurrection’.”

What exactly should LLMs be used for?

AncestryDNA would absolutely give conclusive proof of either close blood relationship or lack thereof. In practice, it’s just as good as a paternity test.

The only caveats I can think of are:

• Both parent and (potential) child would have to get the test.
• I guess if AncestryDNA just completely messed up and represented some random other person’s DNA as the parent’s or child’s, that would give false negatives.
• Chimerism.
• AncestryDNA might not be admissable in court.

And of those, the first three are just as applicable to paternity tests as they are to AncestryDNA.

• ✅
• ✅
• ❌
• ✅
• ✅/❌
• ❌
• ​
• ❌

Have you seen Gotham?

You can take my terminal when you can pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

Any one-liner you put together, you can re-run trivially. You can rerun it with modifications trivially. You can wrap it in a for loop that runs it with different parameters trivially. You can stick it in a file and make a reusable Bash script. It’s far easier to show someone else how you did it (just copy/paste the text of your terminal session) than dozens of screenshots of a point-and-click adventure (and not in a good way) GUI app. Bash commands are easier over SSH than GUI apps over RDP or VNC or whatever. You can’t script a GUI app.

I seriously find myself wondering why someone would use a GUI for something they can do with a terminal. Learning curve is the only reason I can think of.

I frequently find myself creating tools that let me do with a terminal what I formerly could only do with a GUI tool.

The horrors persist, but so do $5 single-topping hot and ready-to-go.

Crap. I was thinking I might skip the Switch 2. But this might be my reason to get one.

I really want to see a homebrew exploit before I get one, though.

I can definitely see a lot of good applications for this way of doing things.

It does seem like I often run across “error handling” code that literally just catches a bunch of different exception types and throws a new exception with the same content from the caught error just reworded, adding literally zero helpful information in the process.

It’s definitely the case that sometimes the exact sort of crash you’d get if you didn’t handle errors is exactly the best sort of exception output the program could do given its particular use case and target audience. Or at least it might be best to let the error be handled much further away in the call stack.

Well, 50% is “at least 15%”.

Samhain, the night when !witchymemes@lemmy.world leaks into other communities. And I’m here for it.

So build your own. ;)

I break this image out a lot but:

Open Source that shit. (If you want to get it to a more “done” state first, that’s fine.) The world can always use more FOSS.

I can’t imagine you’re the only one in this situation. If I were in your shoes, I’d search for similar stories online and see if I could get a sense of how friendly the company is to swapping OSs. For some companies, changing the OS is a complete deal breaker. Other companies are pretty willing to assume the issue was indeed strictly hardware and had nothing to do with changing the OS, and thus will go ahead and do the repair.

If you find that company is more like the former, install Windows. If not, just start the warranty repair process.