> an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. disagree, thanks again. if you just show up to blindly dunk on my actual-conte

> an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. disagree, thanks again. if you just show up to blindly dunk on my actual-contentful talking without saying a single thing, it's you whose being aggressive. i'm fine with aggression too, but i expect it to actually present a form & not just live in shadows. like you did. ultimately i think i contributed to reason, shared perspective, and if i ruffle feathers in negative people who won't build their own stances, i have zero bones about it. could i do more to coax them into saying something useful? perhaps. should i? meh. apologies, but vacuousness is it's own clear counter-argument & i don't lament pointing that out. there's some legitemacy to telling me to fuck around and find out. frankly i'm not really sure how i'd get access, and i dont think these systems can actually understand & rewrite my code at all, right now, can't read a github repo. so it seems like an impossible ask to even try to do the very basic long-term co-partnership i'd asked after, at all. and again i don't really have access, as far as i can tell, cause they're all fairly guarded inaccessible experiments. i really don't think we'd find much of hope or promise, if we were somehow able to get these systems to try to start working on our existing code-bases. does anyone have any starting place at all to start re-believing against my objections?