Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

nvie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 427 posts

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#261

Post by abustamam »

globular-toast wrote: post #232
m12k wrote: post #137

Regarding the original git-flow model: I've never had anyone able to explain to me why it's worth the hassle to do all the integration work on the "develop" branch, while relegating the master/main branch to just being a place to park the tag from the latest release. Why not just use the master/main branch for integration instead of the develop branch - like the git gods intended - and then not have the develop branc…

Yeah, I actually think that diagram and "git-flow" has caused a lot of harm. It shows a complete misunderstanding of both continuous integration and what tags are for. I've successfully purged git-flow and dragged developers, kicking and screaming, to a simple master branch, tags and maintenance branch model a few times now.

When I first got started programming, the "git flow" method was the one that popped up and was referred to most when I googled how does git work. And so I thought that git flow was the canonical way to use git.

I tried adhering to it at my first job but I guess I didn't understand git flow well enough because people just thought I was making random branches for fun.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#263

Post by ryandrake »

AlienRobot wrote: post #151
p_ing wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said it takes multiple people screwing up, implying that publishing content had multiple gates/reviewers. It doesn’t.

But if there are no gates, doesn't that mean the people who should have put the gates in there screwed up?

There have been no Gates at Microsoft for a long time.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#264

Post by fooyc »

nippoo wrote: post #7

They've taken it down now and replaced with an arguably even less helpful diagram, but the original is archived: https://archive.is/twft6

Apparently the new diagram is now a rip off of another one from Atlassian: https://bsky.app/profile/vurobinut.bsky.social/post/3mf52hmw...

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#265

Post by oytis »

Animats wrote: post #59

This is so out of hand. There's this. There's that video from Los Alamos discussed yesterday on HN, the one with a fake shot of some AI generated machinery. The image was purchased from Alamy Stock Photo. I recently saw a fake documentary about the famous GG-1 locomotive; the video had AI-generated images that looked wrong, despite GG-1 pictures being widely available. YouTube is creating fake images as thumbnails fo…

Youtube has recently recommended me a video of Feynman allegedly explaining why we couldn't go to Mars and back. I am normally on Youtube for something specific and don't follow recommendations, but hey, it's Feynman and I haven't seen it before, so I had to watch. After a few seconds it has become very clear that the video is totally fake. Then I started digging, and it turned out that both voice and the text it says are fake too. According to the "authors" it was "based on Feynman's work", which is his whole physics course.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#266

Post by marginalia_nu »

OskarS wrote: post #259
marginalia_nu wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iterative example doesn't iterate, mismatches parentheses and brackets. Because of this, the iterative example is shorter and simpler than the "short & simple" lambda example. Lambda example is to the best of my parsing ability this: apples.stream() .filter(a -λ a.isRed()); // Should be apples.stream() .filter(a -> a.isRed()) // or Apple::isRed .forEach(a -> giveApple(a)); // or this::giveApple It's also somewhat imp…

It's interesting to see how LLMs make mistakes sometimes: replacing `->` with `-λ` because arrow sort-of has the same meaning as lambdas in lambda calculus. It's like an LLM brain fart replacing something semantically similar but nonsensical in context.

Probably morphed > into λ because they're similar shapes, and lambda was in the prompt. Image models are often prone to that sort of hallucination.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#267

Post by nashashmi »

I remember doing these kinds of knock offs of diagrams all the time in elementary school and middle school. I wonder if I did this when I was a kid, would the author feel just as triggered?

At some point, AI transformations of our work is just good enough but not excellent enough. And that is where the creators’ value lies.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#268

Post by tremon »

bandrami wrote: post #237
m12k wrote: post #137

Regarding the original git-flow model: I've never had anyone able to explain to me why it's worth the hassle to do all the integration work on the "develop" branch, while relegating the master/main branch to just being a place to park the tag from the latest release. Why not just use the master/main branch for integration instead of the develop branch - like the git gods intended - and then not have the develop branc…

The model works well if you're developing version 3.2 (which is not ready yet) but also non-trivially maintaining 3.1.

Exactly. As soon as you're working with multiple active releases, the branching model becomes a distinction without a difference. You will always be working with multiple (tagged) release branches, a default branch on which developers base their new work, and an integration branch where development work is gathered and tested to cut the next release. Whether the default and integration branch are identical or separate is mostly immaterial to the developer workflow.

The only meaningfully different model is when you have a continuously-releasable trunk and never do fixes on older releases (quite common for internal tools).

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#269

Post by coldpie »

rmunn wrote: post #28

Similar story. I'm American but work and live outside the US, so I don't know how likely this would be if I had ordered from Amazon. But I ordered a rug for my sons' room from this country's equivalent to Amazon (that is, the most popular order-online-and-we-ship-to-you storefront in this country), and instead of what I ordered (a rug with an image showing the planets, with labels in English) I got an obviously AI-ge…

I've gone back to shopping pretty much exclusively offline. Shifting through the garbage was too much work even before the AI slop flood. I'd rather pay a little extra to a local retailer so I know what I'm actually buying because it's right there on the shelf in front of me.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#270

Post by coldpie »

rzmmm wrote: post #97
nippoo wrote: post #7

They've taken it down now and replaced with an arguably even less helpful diagram, but the original is archived: https://archive.is/twft6

It looks like typical "memorization" in image generation models. The author likely just prompted the image. The model makers attempt to add guardrails to prevent this but it's not perfect. It seems a lot of large AI models basically just copy the training data and add slight modifications

> It seems a lot of large AI models basically just copy the training data and add slight modifications

Copyright laundering is the fundamental purpose of LLMs, yes. It's why all the big companies are pushing it so much: they can finally freely ignore copyright law by laundering it through an AI.

Post reply on HN