I interpreted it as the author adding some internal dialog about how they want to do more research on the article/person in question so they were opening up a new tab so they could learn more. But I can see how this could certainly be some copy/paste artifact.
I can see the greater complex-wide cycle argument for complex wide amenities, leasing office support, and maintenance request response/resolution times.
Everyone moves out, so the above issues become a higher priority until units are backfilled. Since units are filled, the above issues become less important (to the owners at least, not the renters). Then renters receive this worse service, start moving out in waves, and the cycle continues.
The mold, and in-unit plumbing, and insect issues seem more like routine maintenance types of things to me. But compounded slightly by longer maintenance request response/resolution times.
> I am sorry but I can’t use any US AI if I don’t have the guarantee that I will be able to use it tomorrow.
To be fair this is every commercial model. We have already seen GHCP increase prices by anywhere from 10-100x (depending on usage). And old models get retired all the time. While these are not exactly the same as a cutting edge model being shut down, increasing prices a super high amount leads to effectively the same outcome.
Where is it forbidden by the standard? I don't see anything in the GET definition in RFC 9110 [1] forbidding that. My understanding was that this is just undefined behavior. And not recommended due to your point about some third-party CDNs and RPs handling that UB in different ways.
I may be the exception, but if I plan to work on non-work related stuff while traveling I absolutely take my personal laptop. I've done this when traveling to my HQ, as well as taking both work and personal laptops on personal vacations.
Any tips on how you unsloppify things? Are you using things like claude.md/copilot.md (or similar) to guide better, do you have specific types of prompts that you run, or do you adjust your code review practices in some way to more efficiently review lots of slop code?
One of my particular complaints is how code-gen LLMs tend to re-create the same code over and over again. Case in point, a use-case where a team name is generated from a list of team member names. The LLM re-generates this code in-line every time it needs to display the team name, rather than simply writing and reusing a utility style function.
I know I need to fix this. At this point I'm planning to just prompt something like "please list all the places where team names are generated/calculated", plus manually search through the codebase, then perform the abstraction myself. But I'm unsure how to prevent this (both this example, and other cases that could benefit from similar utility functions) continuing to occur in the future.
I've definitely shot my own foot off in the past by implementing things in a rockstar manner. In my case, it typically involves me over-abstracting something that really doesn't need it. Or building something for use-cases that never actually happen. So I have to try to keep YAGNI and KISS in mind whenever my mind wanders into over-abstraction territory.
Do you have any examples that you've generated from standup-to-comics? I didn't see anything in the repo, and would like to see some examples before spending the time to set up myself :)