Conversely, ads are now one of the primary vectors how malware is distributed, so you still have at least 3 viruses on your computer. 👍

Huh, isn’t that just plastic bullshit? Why is it so expensive?

Oh man, that does not register as food to my brain, from all the food dyes. If the packaging wasn’t there, you could’ve told me this is a cleaning sponge and I might’ve believed you…

I would use an enum. Booleans are bad, because they don’t tell you what true means. And specifically named functions are bad, because you cannot pass them through the codebase as data (without resorting to entirely functional patterns).

I mean, your examples are in C, which has shit enums that are just integers, so at runtime you won’t know either what a 1 is without context.
And I believe the compiler doesn’t stop you either from passing a different enum or just an integer into a parameter with that enum as type.
But at least it’ll be written in the code what you hope to get passed, so…

I’ll go on a trip over 2½ days in autumn, and for dietary reasons, I can’t really expect to find food there. So, my current plan is genuinely to just bring my own food for the whole trip.

And yeah, it’s just 7 meals, a bag of food is probably enough. But in my head, I’m already trying to work out the logistics of transporting a shopping cart’s worth of food there. 🫠

Yeah? You should still make a decision. If you want it possible to watch, star and fork the repo from any of the sub-pages, then that stuff has to live in that top ribbon.

But then you shouldn’t duplicate it into the Code sub-page. I’d work with split buttons, where you can look at who starred and you can add your own star, all from the same UI element. It would not even take up more space, since they do already display the count in the top ribbon as well.

Apparently this is how Codeberg does it (see e.g. this repo), so this might be where I have the idea from…

I mean, yeah, it can make sense to duplicate information. That screenshot isn’t supposed to say that all of these should be deduplicated.
But you really gotta be cautious with duplication, because it makes everything else harder to find. And I would absolutely argue that GitHub has crossed the line where they duplicate too much, across the board. It feels like design-by-committee.

This is entirely anecdotal, but what really dumbfounded me while annotating that screenshot, is that I never actually read the links in that “About” section.
I’ve seen this page probably a thousand times already, but I had no idea that there’s an “Activity” link there, which actually seems like it could be useful. Nor a link to the README, to the CONTRIBUTING.md or for “Custom Properties” (whatever that is).
I had no idea how to report a repo until now, even though the link is apparently always on screen.

There’s just so much info there, and it’s presented like read-only info, not like navigation links, so I always just skipped over the lines that don’t have numbers in them. I also genuinely never tried clicking any of these lines before…

I could rant a lot about the GitHub UX, so here’s just the fairly obvious stuff on the repository page:

Red arrows mean duplicated information or duplicated navigational elements.
Green arrow means why the fuck do I have to tell our customers to click a random link in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, in order to download our software?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Late_for_School_with_Toast_in_Her_Mouth

I’ve heard before that powders/solids are generally easier to mix than liquids, because you can just have all the active parts go when water is added.

With liquids (or really water-based solutions), there’s already water in there, so you have to design the reactions, so that they only start when a certain water concentration is reached, which is a lot more fickle and limits you in what you can do.

I could imagine that giving powder an advantage, but I also don’t have scientific evidence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Was recently talking to a working student at $DAYJOB about LLMs and wanted to make the point that the pay-per-use model shows they’re still a relatively new/immature technology. So, I likened them to mobile phone calls, which would generally cost you per minute in the early 2000s.

Yeah, she had no idea what I was talking about.

This week, I was talking to someone at work about a topic they know a lot more about. It was a good exchange, I learned a lot. After the meeting, in the span of like half an hour, they sent me ten essay-length LLM outputs.

And it’s just genuinely, like, what is the goal here? It’s cool that they want to provide additional reading material, but clearly they did not proof-read it, so I could’ve just asked an LLM myself, if I deemed that helpful.

There is also just no chance in hell that I’m reading ten essays on the topic, especially when they’re as poorly written as LLM output generally is. I genuinely took a few minutes to try to skim it and I covered maybe 10% of the text, but learned hardly anything.

I just really don’t understand this mindset of “I can generate a lot of text, so I’m being helpful by sending it to you”.

The section “4. What editing does to the mark” talks about that. Probably best to look at that illustration again, but basically those edits would interrupt consecutive runs of detectable text, but if a run is long enough, it can still be detected with statistical significance.

So, it doesn’t have to check the ‘color’ of the words from start to end uninterrupted, but rather can also detect color sequences in the middle of the text.

Yeah, they can’t easily rotate keys, because the text can’t tell you which key was used.

They could switch to a new key e.g. every month and then just check every previous key during detection. But that would slowly increase the likelihood of false positives, so no idea if that’s a good idea either.

Funnily enough, Firefox basically has it, with its Tracking Protection. The vast majority of ads use tracking, so get blocked by it.

With “refine”, I would guess they’re talking about refining a task, so breaking it down into smaller, more concrete/actionable tasks.

Because that’s usually meant in dev lingo, and because the other possible meaning of improving already-written code/docs is kind of already covered by “review”.

Huh, is that also why the western half is relatively unpopulated? It’s not quite the inverse of the population density, but not too far off either…

I believe, the right term to call that, is abuse of their dominance in one market to force their way into another…

With how many ant species there are, you can pretty much always find at least one that breaks the ‘rules’ of how ants are. 🙃