I am perplexed that they refuse to acknowledge some pretty deep issues I see every major Go project run into:

• There are corner cases where it is literally impossible to check of the value of a type-param interface is nil.
• Type-params on methods
• Type-safe enums

As I explained elsewhere there is no official app to change this setting. Users can hack their gsettings.

Support for middle-paste will slowly but surely bitrot and eventually be removed.

No default gnome app will be able to toggle that default. You can hack it in gsettings.

And worse, the fact there is a setting means that only the default will be tested. The feature will slowly but surely bitrot. In a few years we’ll see a proposal to remove it entirely. This is how software development works.

Many moons ago I did a project at uni where we implemented elliptic curve cryptography in Java and released it as open source. Unsurprisingly, we had no idea what we were doing. Some years later I get a random mail from someone using it on some embedded system…

I don’t want to know, and I fear that ist is paramount that I maintain plausible deniability 😂♥️🙏

Do it. DO IT

That depends on what you count as a “test”. In some langs/frameworks it is a lot, indeed.

Bash

Yeah. Totally agree on this. I spend maybe 3-4h a day reviewing code, and these are my thoughts…

The LLM generated tests I see are generally of very low quality. Perfectly fitting the bill of looking like a test, but not actually being a good test.

They often don’t test the precise expected value. As an overly simplistic example: They rarely check 2+2==4. But just assert 2+2>0, or often just that 2+2 doesn’t cause an error.

The tests often contain mountains of redundancy. Again, an oversimplified example: They have a test for 2+2, and another for 2+3.

There is never any attempt to make the tests nice to read for humans. It is always just heaps of boilerplate code. No helpers introduced, or affordances to simplify test setup.

Coupling the proclivity for boilerplate together with subtly redundant tests makes for some very poor programming. Worse than I’d expect from a junior, tbh.

And 1500 tests… That is not necessarily a lot! If that is the output of 1 month of pumping out code, I would say bare minimum

This is just incorrect, sorry to break the news. Most modern electric cars are hardwired to phone home. In most models the surveillance is fused directly into critical components like the fuel pump or the braking system. You cannot just pull out some wires in the dashboard. If you disconnected these things the car is unlikely to work. These details have been covered by people who have worked in the industry

Most devs I know like recursion. Trouble is that many popular languages don’t support tail recursion, but throw a stackoverflow error after a few thousand levels. So you have to keep track of max recursion depth manually, and it starts to look like a complicated solution

Most devs I know like recursion. Trouble is that many popular languages don’t support tail recursion, but throw a stackoverflow error after a few thousand levels. So you have to keep track of max recursion depth manually, and it starts to look like a complicated solution

I don’t know precisely how they are automated, but a pile of applications came in seconds after opening the position. I think I heard talk about online services that you can pay to do the bottling, but cannot remember the name(s). I personally know people who wrote their own bot to do this.

It looks like most applications are from real people, but impossible to tell without a deep vetting honestly. Malicious people running several “fake developer accounts” (for remote work, which is all we do) collecting paychecks until fired, or simply spying, is a known problem in the industry, but not something I have experienced first hand. Yet.

We get 100s of automated applications per day for a position we recently opened. 99% are automated and no where near meeting the requirements. We try to give everyone a review and a reply but it is a massive task, unfortunately. We do not have dedicated personel to handle these matters so it costs engineering time. The current situation for online software dev job application sucks for everyone.

I guess what I am trying to say is: If you don’t get a reply to an application it is likely because you are drowning in noise and someone at the other end is struggling to keep up.

9 times out of 10, this “vibe draft” sends people down a terrible path that they would have never ventured had there been an adult in the room. I swear I review so much code that sets off in the wrong direction because of this, and I am sick of it.

Forgejo supports SSO, and from a quick skim of the diff it looks like they support GitHub and OpenID logins.

X11 is “complete” in the sense that we have followed it to the end of the road. X11 has a series of well documented fundamental problems that does not make it suitable for a modern OS. I will not belabor them here (except to note that security in particulat in X11, is exceptionally weak for modern standars). These issues are unfixable because they are built into core assumptions and behaviours of all legacy apps.

At some point there has to be a switch. There simply is not manpower to maintain 2 separate windowing systems. I am sure we would all want there to be an army of devs working on these things on maintain the 2 stacks. But that is not the timeline we live in. The number of devs working on these things is very low.

Was it too early? I don’t know. There will never be 1-1 feature parity with 30 years of legacy apps. I honestly believe that fixing things like a11y are gonna be much more tenable with only a single windowing system.

For someone who has not used Gnome in 14+ years you sure seem to know a lot about it…

X11 has effectively already been deprecated for years, seeing little to no development on it. No one should be surprised.

And still, there are SEVERAL Long Term Support distros out there that will support X11 for the coming years. Please stop pretending that stuff will start breaking. It will not.

I find that my projects hosted on codeberg are heavily deranked or entirely missing on the top mainstream search engines. My github projects are almost always top 3.

So if it is a library someone might gind useful it has to go in gh. My personal toys can stay on cb.

At least we still have Skype (new), Skype for Enterprise, and Windows Skype

Targeting vulnerable people based on metadata with any form of commercial intent, is morally and ethically highly questionable! A vulnerable person is by definition extremely susceptible to exploitation. Assuming that companies are gonna act out of philanthropy and goodness of their hearts seems a bit naiive.