I don't like the title. The article actually describes the process of proving that dqlite does not have the same bug as SQLite, using a TLA+ specification. The SQLite bug fix was entirely separate from what is described here.
Part of this is an argument for size limits on PRs.
Another part is "how do we communicate project goals and ideals and standards?" The answer to that, I'd argue, is not simple, and will inherently run into scale issues. It's something that needs to be tackled as you move from a bespoke craft project to an industrial project.
Now, maybe you never move. It's okay and good for hobby projects to exist. But let's be clear about the choice there.
Are they gatekeeping to protect against AI "slop" or are they gatekeeping to protect an inefficient and non-scalable review process against velocity?
I've seen policies like this in various places and they do not generally seem to be based quantitative measures of code functionality, security, and efficiency.
There are other approaches to take to deal with large numbers of incoming PRs: improved CI, AI-readable standards for AI code, better static testing, AI first-pass review, etc.
It's fine to enshrine hobbyism into your code review policy to keep things fun and human-scale. On the other hand, where projects actually matter, it is necessary to think about code review as part of an industrial process with inputs and outputs, one where this sort of thing has no place.
Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change. Easy example: if you are in a car with an accelerator pedal depressed.
On the contrary, asking for well-thought out political thought is the most reasonable demand in the world. If you have an idea about health care, national defense, or trade policy, I expect thought and numbers, not vague platitudes.
For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point? Inching movement from the near-zero flows of the mid-20th century? Inching movement from the mass flows of the 21st century? Both ideas would have major consequences, and if you are going to advocate for mass social change, you should think it out and advocate with care and thoughtfulness.
Your statement has no basis whatsoever in reality. The US, for example, had a four-decade moratorium on immigration beginning in 1924. Mass immigration flows appeared at various times and places in the past (often accompanied by bloodshed and suffering), but it's highly incorrect to imagine that 21st-century 1st world demographic shifts are some sort of historical norm.
You may be interested to learn that American immigration flows were higher or lower at various times (nearly zero for long periods). As you allude to with Native Americans, the effects of the different flows were not uniform on all people, and instead caused various negative and positive effects. The period of Americans great post-WWII economic and military rise came during its longest period of immigration moratorium, during which its population was fairly homogeneous. In recent decades, America has begun to decline economically and militarily relative to China, a country not subject to these "strengthening flows". Odd case.
Okay. Let's choose a small random country as a basis for your immigration ideas. Ie., Rwanda (pop 14.8m) or Israel (pop 10.24m). What is the quantity of immigration flow that you want, who and from where and on what basis of admission over what time period. What are your intended demographic, social, and political shifts that you say are going to be "not palatable" for the people living there now? In fact, please expand on exactly how "not palatable" you expect your plans to be for them.
That will always be true for some individuals. But the sector isn't going away. Everyone is retooling right now and it's hard to tell what this generation of AI is even going to do to jobs. I strongly suspect that the companies that manage the retooling most successfully will be hiring more people not less.
I'd be interested in more details about the 17mph collision as well. Was it a dead-center collision with a pole after hard braking? Was it a mirror clip or a curb clip or something similar? There seem to be a wide range of possibilities.
The people most susceptible to consensus mirage are, by the very nature of the beast, the ones least aware of it happening to themselves. Any opinion that you find yourself praised for by any of the groups in your social circle is infinitely suspect.
Clippy is almost certainly the most hated computer avatar in all of human history. Jar Jar Binks or Wesley Crusher come to mind as equivalent foci of psychic negativity. Using him for any movement is self-sabotage, not to mention all the organizations you will scare off because using a copyrighted/trademarked character invites legal risk.
Running the first question as a test against mradermacher's GGUF of the 20b heretic fails when running llama.cpp as Q4_K_M, but successfully generates the tutorial with larger better quality Q8_0
I have a Tesla and a drive FSD back and forth to work every day. It's great
Edit in response to your edit:
Would I risk myself standing in front of a FSD Tesla versus in front of an Uber or an average human-controlled car with the standard percentage chance of the human texting or being otherwise distracted or drunk or tired? I would take FSD. And I think that a mathematical rather than emotional evaluation of the odds would make risk-minded people do the same.