…what was that even supposed to be? En Passant is the closest match my brain can come up with but there is no “m” in there either.

Not for me (usually), because I know it’s a very complex game and that anyone who is more than passingly familiar with it is going to be better than me. My frustration level when I lose is directly proportional to the number of dumb mistakes I made. If I did well for my skill level and the other person just played better, then it becomes a learning opportunity rather a source of frustration.

This applies to other games as well. The only exception is when it’s a game where luck plays a big role and it just isn’t going my way that day. Then I’m not winning or learning, which can also be super frustrating.

…rather than making you allowing you to decide what kind of search experience…

I wouldn’t be so frustrated with AI popping up everywhere if we were given clear choices about whether or not we want to use it.

😘

The article states that he said that in a video, so I don’t thinks it’s necessarily a indicator of AI. It’s not at all uncommon for people to use that phrasing when they’re speaking.

But I’m not about to waste any of my time actually watching his video to confirm.

I’m just honored to be called a legend by a shitpost.

Wouldn’t reviewing the reports and the contributions instead would be faster even if most of them are wrong?

No. That’s what this whole post is about. The current state is unsustainable and a better system is needed.

I don’t think anybody has the answers to your other questions yet - that’s the whole point of the discussion. Open source projects are facing a new challenge and the community as a whole needs to do some brainstorming and experimentation to figure out how to solve it. Video interviews may not be the right solution at all, it’s just one idea among others.

…just because ethics.

Not ethics, practicality. There are only so many people contributing so many hours to open source projects. It’s impossible to handle the entire incoming stream of reports without some filtering.

And your analogy isn’t really capturing the problem. If you want to stick with the (slightly hyperbolic) nuke analogy, it’s more like getting 9 reports that nukes are going to be launched but 6 of them name different source countries, 4 of them say it’ll actually be tomorrow night, 2 of them say the nukes will be unarmed for some reason, and one says it’s actually bottle rockets being launched. I hope you can find them in time because they’re buried among 362 other intelligence reports about god knows what, many of which are duplicates of things you already knew about. Also, you don’t know any of the sources or what their motives and competency levels are.

@OwOarchist@pawb.social didn’t say anything about banning AI usage at all, just that we need a better system to restrict contributions to people who can demonstrate that they can filter the noise out of their own contributions instead of just spamming mailing lists with everything their chosen tool spits out. No one is going to dump a valid bug report just because a contributor used AI to find it. They want to dump the endless stream of duplicate and invalid reports being submitted by people that don’t bother confirming that the reports they’re submitting are new and valid.

They don’t even have to be intentionally built in. Anything that generates unnecessary work for FOSS volunteers is a win for proprietary software companies.

Even an easy to use and well-built tool that produces good results would result in mailing list and bug report noise simply because people like to contribute. If we set aside those who are just trying to pad their resume with open source contributions and bad actors trying disrupt FOSS projects, we’re still left with a lot of well-intentioned, mostly inexperienced devs generating duplicate and/or invalid reports and requests.

Since the current state of AI tools certainly does not produce consistently good results, I don’t think organizations that are hostile to FOSS projects actually need to do anything at all for them to be disruptive. Just make their shitty tools accessible and other people will significantly contribute to maintainer burnout without even intending to.

I’d like to use a cookie cutter to cut circular pieces out of a square pizza.

I really like the way GitHub adds its invitation to the site link summary so Microsoft is inviting me to contribute to exploit development.

Bring back melted wax letter seals too.

Stroking the criminals is certainly one way to handle things…

“Shake it off” by Taylor Swift

in the 4th grade

Sometimes I forget how old I am, then a comment like this blindsides me.

Soulfly, Soulfly II, Soulfly III, etc. I think all of their albums have one instrumental, melodic, tribal inspired song that is worlds apart from their otherwise aggressive metal.

And with a trigger warning for sexual abuse: Motōrhead - Don’t Let Daddy Kiss Me. I have never been more caught off-guard by a song than when I stumbled across this, which was only released as a single.

That damn search bar was the only reason I ever started looking at launchers. I used LG and Samsung phones for years and wanted a more streamlined interface closer to stock android, so I got a pixel.

And the very first time I turned it on, I was incredibly disappointed to see this giant Google logo nailed to the bottom of the screen, existing only to provide functionality that I don’t want.

So into the launcher rabbit hole I dove.

A population of 90 million people is irrelevant to the question of military capability. It is absolutely relevant to a discussion about the insurgency and guerilla warfare that would inevitably follow the conventional war, but I think you and I already agree that there’s no way for the U.S. to win that (nor should we try).

But I don’t think the bits of relatively small damage Iran has done to U.S. forces in the region is convincing evidence that they’re capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities, even without going nuclear. Launch enough drones and missiles and a few will inevitably get through. But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries. Most importantly though, we have significantly more resources poured into everything that would follow the drones in a full-scale invasion.

And just to reiterate: I don’t think any of this is a good idea, and I don’t support any of it. But when you’re talking about the significance of damage and casualties caused by Iran, you can’t ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.

Your description of the differences between Iraq and Iran is good, as well as your explanation of the current situation.

However, it would change significantly if the U.S. decided to stop half-assing it. If the douchebags running the show decide they want to commit to a full-scale invasion with all available assets, I think you’d see a situation more similar to Iraq. We could absolutely roll Iran’s formal military if we committed to it.

But the subsequent occupation and attempt to maintain control would be doomed to the same failures as Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those before it, but on an even larger scale. All forward progress would stop once the Iranian military’s command and control falls. There’s no way we could win the asymmetric warfare that would follow, and I’m not at all saying we should even try. It’s all a pointless pile of shit that never should have been started.

What the hell just happened? You admitted you had incorrect information and accepted the correction in a mature and civil manner?

Nah, you’re supposed to dig in and argue for hours. Maybe go through my post history to inspire some ad hominem attacks. Throw in some slurs if you’re feeling feisty.

I guess I’ll just go back to work if you’re going to help foster an environment of constructive dialogue like that.