So you argue we discriminate based on who/what wrote the code, instead of what's in it?
Let's take this to a different domain, self driving cars. Would you equally argue for human driving? I'm pretty sure over time it will become clear to everyone that machines will be able to outperform humans consistently at this task, to the degree that human driving will become illegal. But for now the press likes to focus on any failure of machine driving, taking for granted human drivers are the largest or second largest cause of premature death in many countries.
Coding (in many ways, but not all) is a more open ended and versatile task than driving, so it's natural that current iterations seem untrustworthy, but ignoring the trajectory is erring on conservatism, and doesn't seem to me to be grounded in any sound reasoning.
Imagine military instructors would say that it's important to focus on cavalry and bayonette use just because they can't figure out how to adapt their curriculum to the new reality.
On the other side of every "useless war" is the what if question. Killing Hitler before WWII would have been seen as a cruel interference with German sovereignty.
Anyway it would be wise not to tie social network corporate affairs to the war. The two are not linked in a more significant way than a social network in general being linked to such affairs as a media.
Without the purchase price, it is unclear whether this deserves congratulations or condolences.
Two years in the LLM race will have definitely depleted their seed raise of $4m from 2023, and with no news of additional funds raised it's more than likely this was a fire sale.
It is, as far as I know, an unsolved problem how to implement full metadata transparency on a mobile device.
For example, Aztec, a privacy focused blockchain, requires recipients to download the entire block to determine if any private message is addressed to them (and BTW use techniques resembling Signal's double ratcheting in creating these identifiers) [1]
This is infeasible on mobile devices. At best, it allows the user to select a proxy server they trust to identify messages intended for them and forward a notification.
I'm trying to understand, would jj's first class conflicts solve the issue of having "stacks" of PRs that can easily be updated at any point in the stack? This is one of the features most absent from git, but prevalent in Google's tooling as well as Meta's. The only good known solution I know is graphite.dev
Amending commits, while having the advantage of keeping the git tree pristine at every single point, is incredibly uncomfortable for async workflows such as the one suggested, where your review might take hours/days and you want to continue coding in a forked branch. Upstreaming any code review changes becomes a pain as git treats the two branches as completely distinct.
Let's take this to a different domain, self driving cars. Would you equally argue for human driving? I'm pretty sure over time it will become clear to everyone that machines will be able to outperform humans consistently at this task, to the degree that human driving will become illegal. But for now the press likes to focus on any failure of machine driving, taking for granted human drivers are the largest or second largest cause of premature death in many countries.
Coding (in many ways, but not all) is a more open ended and versatile task than driving, so it's natural that current iterations seem untrustworthy, but ignoring the trajectory is erring on conservatism, and doesn't seem to me to be grounded in any sound reasoning.