I think people are confusing the bubble popping with AI being over. When the dot-com bubble popped, it's not like internet infrastructure immediately became useless and worthless.
that's actually not all that true... a lot of fiber that had been laid went dark, or was never lit, and was hoarded by telecoms in an intentional supply constrained market in order to drive up the usage cost of what was lit.
If it was hoarded by anyone, then by definition not useless OR worthless. Also, you are currently on the internet if you're reading this, so the point kinda stands.
jj has been fantastic for my productivity, but most of that comes from its alignment with the particular SWE practices on my team: trunk-based development, small atomic commits, quick review turnaround.
Getting rid of the staging area and allowing conflicts are the biggest wins for me day-to-day. No more stashing/popping or littering my workspace with WIP commits. It's so easy to whip up a change, send it for review, then ping-pong between writing new code on top of the change and making reviewer-requested edits further down the stack.
Wait, what? I’ve spent maybe 10 minutes on a jj tutorial but got distracted. Yours is the kind of anecdote that makes me want to jump back in and push ahead.
It depends on the nature of the code and codebase.
There have been many occasions when working in a very verbose enterprise-y codebase where I know exactly what needs to happen, and the LLM just types it out. I carefully review all 100 lines of code and verify that it is very nearly exactly what I would have typed myself.
If the false positive rate is consistently 0.0%, that is a surefire sign that the detector is not effective enough to be useful.
If a false positive is libel, then any useful malware detector would occasionally do libel. Since libel carries enormous financial consequences, nobody would make a useful malware detector.
I am skeptical that changing the wording in the warning resolves the fundamental tension here. Suppose we tone it down: "This executable has traits similar to known malware." "This website might be operated by attackers."
Would companies affected by these labels be satisfied by this verbiage? How do we balance this against users' likelihood of ignoring the warning in the face of real malware?
The problem is that it's so one sided. They do what they want with no effort to avoid collateral damage and there's nothing we can do about it.
They could at least send a warning email to the RFC2142 abuse@ or hostmaster@ address with a warning and some instructions on a process for having the mistake reviewed.
I'm not asking about this specific case. There are plenty of examples of Google wrongly accusing others of being malicious with massive business impact
If religion had been the cause of a lasting difference, I would have expected it to go in the opposite direction. Articulate, persuasive, emotive public testimony done in a declamatory style is part of the fabric of historical American Christianity, much more than the mostly liturgical traditions of British Christianity.
If there is a difference in communication skills, I don't think religious history explains it.
Interesting perspective. I don't find many religious people articulate or persuasive. And how often do they have to give public testimony?
The pilgrims lived in Holland for years in exile before deciding to go to the new world. It would seem to take an extreme group of people to do that, but articulate isn't one of the traits I would assign to them.
A year ago someone on HN said “I can confirm that iMessage is extremely common in Australia. WhatsApp is very uncommon, outside of people with European (and maybe South American?) friends or family to keep in touch with.”
I can also confirmed that iMessage is basically unused in France. (And that was a core argument in the EU of Apple against the DMA for iMessage, so even Apple admits its low usage in the EU)
The issue with iMessage outside the US is the branding, it's branded as an SMS app and SMS being dead (outside of ads and delivery drivers) doesn't help for adoption.
iMessage is popular in the US because everyone has an iPhone because everyone has iMessage and everyone connects it to social status - network effects. The same reason (besides the social status) everyone uses WhatsApp in Europe.
This has more to do with the way the iPhone was launched, and the American desire to own the most expensive product, than any technical merits.
This might not be charitable, but my perspective is that some of the advocates want it both ways.
I would be interested in seeing an MIT/BSD licensed project saying, from the beginning, something like "This project is available under a permissive license, but I have a strong ethical expectation of my users to give me money if they build a product off of this work. I am fully aware that I can't legally enforce this, but I will certainly call you out publicly for your greed and lack of respect for my wishes."
My hunch is that many advocates would hesitate to put this in their project Readme, because they know that some companies might actually comply... by not using the code. (Call me naive but I think this is plausible.) They would rather give the impression that the code is truly no-strings-attached, because that would help drive adoption. Then later they can come back and say they ought to be given a cut.
> My hunch is that many advocates would hesitate to put this in their project Readme, because they know that some companies might actually comply... by not using the code.
Definitely. And not only companies; even Debian rejected some packages because the upstream owners added restrictive "desires" on top of the actual licenses.
