In my opinion, this question makes no sense so it belongs nowhere.

But for it to be on topic, it would need to go in a general technology or OS community.

Data storage devices are the last items you wanna buy second hand though. A drive failing could mean much more than just having to buy a new one.

I hope this is satire. But I can’t be certain if it is.

No it is not. This has nothing to do with programming.

Programming is writing in a programming language so the computer can execute it.

This post mentions no programming language, nor any set of programming languages. It isn’t either something that applies to all languages.

In short, it has nothing to do with programming

Sometimes? I’m not tall at all, and if I pee standing up I later see droplets of pee basically everywhere. It wasn’t that much of a problem as a child, so I guess it’s height-based. But again, for an adult I’m not tall at all.

It’s a horn. No veins https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4_9TFeMfJE

The problem is not the AI integration. Along with AI integration they changed their stance on data selling.

It went from “We promise to never sell your data” to “Firefox is secure!” Just as they were adding AI.

Yes, I know about that one. That is code made specifically to reproduce a bug in the compiler. Unless you do it on purpose, there’s no way you’d get hit by it. If it were, they would have fixed it, it’s been known for several years.

I would love to see a study about people that follow C++ best practices. Put a bunch of C++ devs and tell them to write some programs. Then see how many of those programs would be valid according to rust’s borrow checker.

Whatever % of people that “fail” this test, is much higher than the 0% of people that would do so using rusts’ compiler.

Of course, programs that don’t pass the borrow checker can be totally memory safe, but that would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis.

I’ve only seen it once. And it was made specifically to trigger a compiler bug. It barely looked like rust code.

Now tell me how someone will introduce such a bug by accident. Winning the lottery 10000 times in a row with the same number isn’t impossible either. But we are engineers, not pure math pedantics. 0.000000000000001% probability for something that happens with less frequency than once per second is impossible.

Easy. Do some specific incantation that barely looks like it follows rust syntax that is specifically made to exploit a bug in the rust compiler.

The same argument for cartels. “We didn’t all increase our prices to the exact same amount, we just paid a consulting company to tell us which price we should use. Of course our competitors used the exact same company, but that’s just a coincidence”.

Tbf that leads to the problem of:

Company/Individual makes program that is in no way meant for making management decision.

Someone else comes and deploys that program to make management decisions.

The ones that made that program couldn’t stop the ones that deployed it from deploying it.

Even if the maker aimed to make a decision-making program, and marketed it as so. Whoever deployed it is ultimately the responsible for it. As long as the maker doesn’t fake tests or certifications of course, I’m sure that would violate many laws.

Heh. Ironic.

Maybe they changed the defaults. I stopped using GitHub after they trained their AI over private repos.

But I remember clearly that I was annoyed when looking at my own repos because my forks (for actually doing PRs) would show at the top instead of my own repos.

Maybe some people don’t delete the fork after their PR is done.

In my case, I found another explanation.

Sometimes, a random person comes and forks one of my repos. I check their profile, and it’s a techbro student with hundreds of forked repos without any commits. With their bio referencing AI or some shit.

I’m pretty sure these people fork a lot of repos just to pad their CV or something. Make it look like you have a lot of repos. Because when you go to someone’s profile, it is not clear that a repo is a fork instead of their own creation.

Maybe naming single-letter variables I can see being easier to review than to do.

Any other kind of refactoring though, IDE refactoring tools are instantaneous and deterministic.

The problem with that is that reviewing takes time. Valuable maintainer time.

Curl faced this issue. Hundreds of AI slop “security vulnerabilities” were submitted to curl. Since they are security vulnerabilities, they can’t just ignore them, they had to read every one of them, only to find out they weren’t real. Wasting a bunch of time.

Most of the slop was basically people typing into chatgpt “find me a security vulnerability of a project that has a bounty for finding one” and just copy-pasting whatever it said in a bug report.

With simple MRs at least you can just ignore the AI ones an priorize the human ones if you don’t have enough time. But that will just lead to AI slop not being marked as such in order to skip the low-prio AI queue.

I hope they are prepare for the AI slop DDoS. Curl wasn’t, and they didn’t even state they would welcome AI contributions.

PowerShell. You can get it for both windows and Linux. And it actually works with all Ctrl+shift+arrow combinations.