qwery

8 ms·

61.
by qwery 9mo ago
There has never been a qualification required to be allowed to build software for yourself. This is unlike building a house, which most jurisdictions recognise as something that should not be undertaken by someone without the ability to dem
62.
by qwery 9mo ago
Have done it, never enough of an audience to be totally humiliated. It's never going to be more efficient. But as for your cringe issue that the audience noticed, one could see that to be a benefit -- prefer to have someone say e.g. &q
63.
by qwery 9mo ago
Not saying this is you, but another way to look at it is that engaging in that process is training you (again, not you, the user) -- the way you get results is by asking the chat bot, so that's what you try first. You don't need
64.
by qwery 9mo ago
I don't really know Ruby, so maybe I'm missing something major, but your commit messages seem extremely verbose yet messy (I can't make heads or tails of them) and I'm seeing language like "deprecated" and a st
65.
by qwery 9mo ago
This sounds more negative than I want it to, but it seems like this is missing the forest for the trees. There's absolutely a real problem here and I am fully supportive of projects seeking to address this. Governments around the world
66.
by qwery 9mo ago
later, ... there are 14 competing jargon files. "Free software" is a fine descriptor. It's needlessly confusing to repeat that "beer as in slurred speech" thing, though. Free software can be free "as in beer&qu
67.
by qwery 10mo ago
> So it's a poor article, so what? I believe their point was to illustrate the disconnect between the problem and the solution. They agree with the problem, and experienced "whiplash" when the solution was described. >
68.
by qwery 10mo ago
> I find it hard to believe anyone would argue in good faith against this ban. This is a problem. You will not accept an argument against the ban. Instead you paint anyone presenting any opposition to any part of it as a stooge of predat
69.
by qwery 1y ago
When a news article has an outrageous headline it's usually not worth reading. This article jumps right in the deep end, quoting a Silicon Valley insider : > I’m getting an enormous number of very sophisticated LinkedIn requests fr
70.
by qwery 1y ago
I apologise for talking past the point you're making, but, Bob Ross was a human being, you know, with thoughts and stuff. How could any of these AI toys possibly compare? I would love to have Bob Ross, wielding a crayon, add some happy
71.
by qwery 1y ago
The term 'layoffs' in this context is simply not what you're describing. These layoffs occur at such scale that it's unreasonable to assume any individual employee being "let go" has even been evaluated as an i
72.
by qwery 1y ago
I too am a selector of text. I select text for many valid reasons. I have never selected text for an invalid reason. A lot of websites include (anti-)features that make it extremely difficult for me to read and this severely limits the amou
73.
by qwery 1y ago
The dismissal of the security concerns is pretty shallow. I don't know how many vulnerable drivers the average gamer has installed. I'm sure 'at least some ' is a safe assumption. The issue I have with this is that alth
74.
by qwery 1y ago
Yeah, I think it's obviously a pretty natural conclusion to draw, that {thing for hinder crawler} ≅≅ {thing for stop all crawler}. Perhaps I should have stated that explicitly in the original comment. As for the presentation/adver
75.
by qwery 1y ago
What does all of this have to do with (depictions of, references to, etc.) Anubis though? You responded to a comment about the mascot surely being a "jackalgirl" as opposed to a "catgirl" because of the Anubis name and o
76.
by qwery 1y ago
I think you're taking it a bit too seriously. In turn, I am, of course, also taking it too seriously. > I do have an issue with claiming that the newly inspired creation is equivalent in any way to the original source Nobody is clai
77.
by qwery 1y ago
Yes, I think you're right. The commentary about its (presumed, imagined) effectiveness is very much making the assumption that it's designed to be an impenetrable wall[0] -- i.e. prevent bots from accessing the content entirely. I
78.
by qwery 1y ago
Hi, I realise I'm replying to a comment from over a week ago, but I happened across this and now I'm here. I don't think you got what I intended with my comment. You may have missed the " they think" in the sentenc
79.
by qwery 1y ago
For one thing, I don't think they think they have a silver bullet here. I think they want some financial support and if some users of the project pay the fee that will be some success. To the specifics, it's not a software l
80.
by qwery 1y ago
While I love the idea of a better deal for free and open source software developers, I don't think a sales/transactional model will actually solve the problem at scale. For one thing, it will eat away at the reasons you like open
81.
by qwery 1y ago
Paperclip sweatshop? I thought all three of us would end up in a paperclip.
82.
by qwery 1y ago
Later: FIXMEs aren't for doing. FIXMEs are comments describing how a piece of code is less than ideal. The code works, of course, because we never commit non-working code -- it could be improved, but it's not broken. The actual fi
83.
by qwery 1y ago
For what it's worth, I see now how that would read as condescending and I'm sorry about that. I mentioned the "last year's model" thing because, to me, it's a phrase most associated with automobile makers and a
84.
by qwery 1y ago
Planned obsolescence is very much an actively employed, functional, business strategy. I think you're only considering one aspect of planned obsolescence -- where the product is designed to have a short lifetime. I don't know why
85.
by qwery 1y ago
People keep questioning the definition of genocide, as if finding some technical distinction will absolve the perpetrators. If you actually care about international law, you might be interested to know that the ICC has issued (standing) arr
86.
by qwery 1y ago
I'm certainly not disputing the existence of grammar nor do I think an LLM is a good way to implement/check/enforce one. And now I realise how my first comment landed. Thanks again!
87.
by qwery 1y ago
Fair enough, thanks for replying. I don't see the task of specifying a grammar as straightforward as you do, perhaps. I guess I just didn't understand the chain of comments. I find that clear-cut, rigid rules tend to be the least
88.
by qwery 1y ago
Please share your reasoning that led you to this conclusion -- that natural language "evolves slowly". You also seem to be making an assumption that natural languages (English, I'm assuming) can be well defined by a simple
89.
by qwery 1y ago
You're right to point out the "relevance factor" is not what people commonly take it to be. The context is (as always) crucial. Of course, the degree to which an individual tolerates advertising varies for a multitude of re
90.
by qwery 1y ago
You could say that languages developed ("evolved") to fit the indisputable human biological faculty for language.

More ›