Micro$lop is all about “AI” so no surprise there.

Glad I moved away from Github and self-host for few years already.

So ombudsman can be for “petty” things, like the belt of my e-bike, but also for much more “serious” things like political corruption, vote scams, etc where I imagine Congress might be correct. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsmen_in_the_United_States clarifies though there are ombudsmen dedicated to agencies but also state level or even city and county level. So I imagine the more precise you are picking the right one, the more likely it’s going to be treated, efficiently or at all.

No idea how it works where you are but in Belgium and in the EU we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_services_by_country is available in most places. Anyway I can tell you when companies receive an email from them, they don’t mess around. I’ve been waiting for a bike part for a year. I contacted the ombudsman, no cost, just 2 emails, suddenly my carbon belt was shipping the very next day.

I agree with everything you wrote but I’m not sure how it helps clarify what I said earlier. So… I think we agree?

On your final point I think the big difference between then (before LLMs) and now is that until recently a very demanding PR, in the sense that the person asking for the merge would have a good idea yet didn’t really get something about the project and thus needed a lot of guidance, it was seen as an investment. It was a risky bet, maybe that person would just leave after a lengthy discussion, maybe they’d move to their own project, etc… but a bit like with a young intern, the person from the project managing that PR was betting that it was worth spending time on it. They were maybe hoping to get some code they themselves didn’t have the expertise on (say some very specific optimization for very specific hardware they didn’t have) or that this new person would one day soon become a more involved contributor. So there was an understanding that yes it would be a challenging process but both parties would benefit from it.

Now I believe the situation has changed. The code submitted might actually be good, maybe not. It will though always, on the surface, look plausible because that’s exactly what LLM have been trained for, for code or otherwise, to “look” realistic in their context.

So… I would argue that it’s this dynamic that has change, from the hope of onboarding a new person on a project to a 1-shot gamble.

Using a 2nd hand Pixel 8 I got for 180 EUR running GrapheneOS, daily driving it since I received it.

IMHO what it shows isn’t what the author tries to show, namely that there is an overwhelming swarm of bits, but rather that those bots are just not good enough even for a bot enthusiast. They are literally making money from that “all-in-one AI workspace. Chat - MCP - Gateway” and yet they want to “let me prioritize PRs raised by humans” … but why? Why do that in the first place? If bots/LLMs/agents/GenAI genuinely worked they would not care if it was made or not by humans, it would just be quality submission to share.

Also IMHO this is showing another problem that most AI enthusiasts are into : not having a proper API.

This repository is actually NOT a code repository. It’s a collaborative list. It’s not code for software. It’s basically a spreadsheet one can read and, after review, append on. They are hijacking Github because it’s popular but this is NOT a normal use case.

So… yes it’s quite interesting to know but IMHO it shows more shortcomings rather than what the title claims.

So… I might be neurospicy or retarded or both or either… but IMHO it’s perfectly rational to sort. It means you get access to the sum or individual pieces way WAY faster than otherwise. What’s arguably less rational though is if you can’t help yourself, even in a life or death situation, and have to sort coins instead of doing CPR. Then it’s not normal.

Ragebait marketing.

FWIW I remember a former colleague who recommended it to me and his argument was about the cryptocurrency you “earn” from it.

I asked him if he could withdraw it. I asked him if he tried. He said not yet but he would. He came back to me few days later saying something along the line that “it’s not straightforward” which was a polite way to say he didn’t manage yet. He worked in IT.

To be clear I’m not saying it’s a scam or that one can’t use the crypto “earned” from it but at least back then, few years ago, some people were just riding on the hope, or even faith, that it would amount to something yet it seemed made in such a way to just hold.

So… not a scam but not exactly empowering users IMHO.

Some contributions to Kwin

Link please

If it doesn’t ignore artistic intent (good luck with that) I’m fine with it.

Sounds like “It it were to work as expected it’d be amazing” i.e every single entrepreneur out there, backed by VCs who know it’s impossible but don’t mind cashing out of the delusion. Bubbles are propped by this kind of sentiments.

I eat food, and the food I eat doesn’t just walk to my place.

So… sure I’d rather have a lot less energy spent on agriculture and industry but if there is one place where I feel energy use is legitimate, it’s feeding us.

Meanwhile I do NOT want better tools for scammers, spammers and fake experts.

I’m not saying it’s a good strategy, just that since SoftBank it’s basically core to the VC default playbook.

I believe it’s been tweaked, thanks to Musk, Enron and banks to subsidies transitioning to too big to fail.

So, it might not work, ever, but I still think if you look at the large VC rounds, that’s what they are funding, to be so big nobody can reach you at any cost.

That’s precisely not engaging though.

I don’t like it when we say “only mentally stable people who don’t mind engaging with a toxic community deserve to be FOSS developers”. That’s just not right.

No idea where that came from, I surely didn’t mean nor suggest so.

I agree. I still don’t think it’s right. I’m not sure how to do better. Overall, developing (in open source or not) or creating art or whatever one is into my once advice is to cherry pick whatever strangers are telling you. You only listen to the healthy advice and everything else must be like water off a duck’s back.

Damned, edited, thanks! (shows the benefit of discussing ;)

Indeed, as they said in Italian “if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike” … the reasoning might be theoretically correct but in the current situation it’s just not the case.

Run up their bills until they can’t afford to be speculative any more.

Sadly I don’t think you’ve met venture capitalists… they will use your usage as a KPI for success. They have a runway longer than you can imagine, check the history of Amazon or Uber. They can be unprofitable for years, heck longer than a decade, and they are fine with it because they are claiming (and sadly sometimes right) to be cornering a trillion dollar market.

Won’t repeat what I wrote just hours ago in https://lemmy.world/post/44130119/22616090 but just the ending :

"I would personally consider instead Bottles, GOG (have different problems), Steam (obviously not open source and basically monopolistic position), etc.

Overall I think preventing discussion is unhealthy (even though sadly sometimes needed, here I lack context, maybe the issue poster did this numerous time on other platforms, title definitely was provocative) but removing provenance is NEVER a good choice. They want to use Claude on their repo? Absolutely fine (even though not to me) but hiding it makes it instantly untrustworthy to me. In fact I even argued in the past that even though I personally do not use GenAI/LLMs (for coding or otherwise) except for testing it should always be disclosed precisely so that others can make THEIR choice in consequence, including using or contributing, cf https://fabien.benetou.fr/Analysis/AgainstPoorArtificialIntelligencePractices"