731–740 of 952 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe that Zig is following its own code of conduct, or not?
The website is not covered by the CoC, so they are not in abeyance
I really want to pull on that thread more, to see how far you’ll go to defend an indefensible position, but I won’t.
I like Zig for the most part but this post does seem needlessly mean spirited. I don't like Microsoft or GitHub either, but I don't see the point of taking pot shots at the devs who work there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a purity spiral that organizations can enter when they start doing this You are the one summoning that spiral by making a cheap gotcha wrt codeberg using Paypal. The project apparently could and did move because the swith from github to codeberg wasn't that big of an impact, and because, while the new forge is not perfect, they feel the association is less severe. There is no "purity spiral" in that, just…
As I was reading your reply I was half convinced that it was not purity spiral but by the end, even you admit it’s an ethics thing so yeah it is pretty much purity spiral in place. Next they will leave the USA so that they won’t be associated with Trump.
They are not going Categorical imperative here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely don't care about how people generate code, but they are responsible for every single line they push for review or merge. That's my policy in each of my clients and it works fine, if AI makes something simpler/faster, good for the author, but there's 0, none, excuses for pushing slop or code you haven't reviewed and tested yourself thoroughly. If somebody thinks they can offset not just authoring or editi…
Totally agree. For me, the hard part has been figuring out the distinction with junior engineers... Is this poorly thought out, inefficient solution that is 3x as long as necessary due to AI, or inexperience?
These discussions are always about tactics and never operations.
They've abandoned GitHub for Codeberg because GitHub has ICE as a customer. Codeberg uses Paypal which is a member of the ICE "Virtual Global Taskforce". https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/top-story-industry-partner... There is a purity spiral that organizations can enter when they start doing this, which ends up with you shoving yourself into a cold dark corner of the internet and still not being completely detached…
You have a point, of course, but for many options, the best we can do is avoid the worst one as there's no perfect solution. I'm not saying that people should leave GitHub because of this, but I can see why some would and why they may pick a different, still not perfect, alternative instead of doing everything themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why the article put that reason aside
It could have done an even better job of putting it aside by not even mentioning it at all. Instead we're all sitting here talking about it instead of the technical reasons.
I'm happy to see the move. Codeberg is probably a more stable/long-term solution than SourceHut as the founder is slightly unhinged (but love what he has built). Honestly, either would have been great choices. More opensource projects should move off GitHub. I moved off it myself.
I am getting fatigued by all of these. I am learning about a new one each time. We have - GitHub - BinCode - GitLab - SourceHut - CodeBerg They all seem to do roughly the same things, but with a different web UI. Competition is great! Especially in response to a big corp that has market share. But... there was value in the centralization of GH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My old rule about the difference between coding and software engineering: For coding, "it seems to work for me" is good enough. For software engineering, it's not. My new rule: For coding, you can use AI to write your code. For software engineering, you can't.
I feel like the distinction is equivalent to LLMs can make mistakes. Humans can't. Humans can and do make mistakes all the time. LLMs can automate most of the boring stuff, including unit tests with 100% coverage. They can cover edge cases you ask them to and they can even come up with edge cases you may not have thought about. This leaves you to do the review. I think think the underlying problem people have is they…
LLMs can make mistakes. Humans can't."
In the rare case when there is a human that is consistently persistently confidently wrong like AI, a project can identify that person and easily stop wasting their time working with that person. With masses of people being told by the vocal AI shills how amazing AI is, projects can easily be flooded with confidently wrong aaI generated PRs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how the two are related at all. A blanket ban on LLM-generated code is at least arguably a reasonable policy.
> A blanket ban on LLM-generated code is at least arguably a reasonable policy. No, I don't think it is. There's more nuance to this debate than either "we're banning all LLM code" or "all of our features are vibe coded". A blanket ban on unreviewed LLM code is a perfectly reasonable way to mitigate mass-produced slop PRs, but it is not reasonable to ban all code generated by an LLM. Not only is it unenforceable, but…
When there's a grey zone then there will be lots of pointless discussions like "why was this AI-generated PR accepted but not mine" etc etc...