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

Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 315 posts

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#281

Post by Rover222 »

karlshea wrote: post #145
Rover222 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really your main point, but Tesla self driving is quite incredible, despite what internet clickbait says. They have a clear path to full autonomy with vision-only systems. But yeah, certainly 5-7 years behind the initial schedule. Which I guess was more of your point.

You’re still falling for it. They have a clear path to vision-only autonomy IN THE BAY AREA. Let’s see it work in Minnesota in the winter where you can’t see lane markings, everything is white, and the camera lenses immediately get covered with road salt spray.

Yeah I'm falling for it by using it every day in 95% of my driving. You're falling for media stories.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#282

Post by Rover222 »

jcgrillo wrote: post #189
j45 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For now. It's important to not confuse activity, with progress, with results. At the same time, it's important to not confuse or downplay results, with progress, with activity. There seems to be activity, progress, and results. It seems to be speeding up. I don't have any preference for or against Tesla. Just observing.

> For now. What can incremental progress do to make a camera see through road salt deposited on its lens? I call bullshit. There isn't any incremental path because it's not physically possible . The photons are stopped by the salt. No amount of "AI" or what the fuck ever else will change this. There is no path towards "progress" here.

You'll eat your words much sooner than you think. The cameras don't need much clarity to work effectively (they work quite well in intense rain). The main forward camera is behind the windshield already.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#284

Post by immibis »

cshores wrote: post #223
tempodox wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly anyone even mentions it in discussions. Even as far as these tools are actually useful, nobody ever asks whether it’s worth the environmental costs.

For Google's Gemini LLM, the energy impact is negligible, with the average prompt consuming the equivalent energy of just three seconds of a microwave's operation.

How much energy is otherwise consumed by a Google search?

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#285

Post by Disposal8433 »

yunwal wrote: post #79
Disposal8433 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If outages [...] stop whole companies in their tracks They should fucking learn how to code because no one in their right mind would depend on such an external service that can be easily replaced by cloning repos locally or using proxies like Artifactory. Even worse when you know that Microsoft is behind it. Yes, most companies don't have good practices and suck at maintaining a basic infrastructure, but it doesn't…

> It's only a stupid git server with PRs. I feel like you’re missing a few features here

Which ones and what are those exclusive features that GitLab doesn't have?

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#286

Post by hamburglar »

non_aligned wrote: post #256
crazygringo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it makes you far more productive as an individual, which if true should be an easy sell Writing unit tests where needed makes you more productive in the long run. Writing in modern languages makes you more productive. Remember how people writing assembly thought compiled languages would rot your brain! But people just resist change and new ways of doing things. They don't care about actual productivity, they care a…

> Writing unit tests where needed makes you more productive in the long run. Debatable? It has positive effects for organizations and for the society, but from a selfish point of view, you gain relatively little from writing tests. In your own code, a test might save you debugging time once in a blue moon, but the gains are almost certainly offset by the considerable effort of writing a comprehensive suite of tests i…

> In your own code, a test might save you debugging time once in a blue moon

It’s much more than this. You feel it when you make a change and you are super confident you don’t have to do a bunch of testing to make sure everything still behaves correctly. This is the main thing good automated tests get you.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#287

Post by ycombinatrix »

goku12 wrote: post #195
acomjean wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember initially GitHub (before MS) was free for open source and pay for everyone else. It wasn’t an entirely new idea (source forge?) but it use git which was rising in popularity. I think GitHub added the “pull request” as a really useful add on to git and that really made it take off. Oddly I used selfhosted git at an academic institution. I liked it because it was set up to use “hooks” https://git-scm.com/…

> I think GitHub added the “pull request” as a really useful add on to git and that really made it take off. For the sake of correctness, the concept of pull requests was not introduced by Github. It already existed in git in the form of the 'request-pull' subcommand. The fundamental workflow is the same. You send the project maintainer a message requesting a pull of your changes from your own online clone repo. The…

I still don't get the line wrapping hangup. Doesn't every modern text editor have an option to auto wrap existing text? Why should I manually limit text to an arbitrary 72 character width between newlines?

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#288

Post by dcminter »

crazygringo wrote: post #275
dcminter wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh, enforced is always top down, sure, if you want to be pedantic. But normally the process starts with enthusiastic devs, propagates out through other devs until a consensus is reached (e.g. source control is the only sane way) and then management starts to enforce it - often with a crappy enterprise take on the basic idea (I'm looking at you IBM Team Connection and Microsoft Visual SourceSafe). AI seems to have p…

It's not pedantic, it's the very issue being discussed. And there have been plenty of enthusiastic devs regarding LLM's. And the idea that "until a consensus is reached" is just not true. These practices are often adopted with 1/3 of devs on board and 2/3 against. The whole point of top-down directives is that they're necessary because there isn't broad consensus among employees. It was the same thing with mobile-fir…

Do you know a lot of devs who, having tried VCS, were against it?

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#289

Post by tempodox »

cshores wrote: post #223
tempodox wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly anyone even mentions it in discussions. Even as far as these tools are actually useful, nobody ever asks whether it’s worth the environmental costs.

For Google's Gemini LLM, the energy impact is negligible, with the average prompt consuming the equivalent energy of just three seconds of a microwave's operation.

All those data centers full of GPUs aren’t running on solar or wind power.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#290

Post by hyperman1 »

tines wrote: post #259
compiler-guy wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note also that it took, more or less, a hardware revolution in the form of RISC, to make compilers able to compete. A big piece of the RISC philosophy was to make it easier for compiler writers. They eventually got there, (and I expect AI will eventually get there too), but it took a lot of evolution.

Really? X86 isn’t RISC and it ruled the world during, not before, the time of compilers.

Starting with the 386, the ISA got a lot more compiler friendly. Up to 286, each register had a specialised task (AX,CX,DX,BX means Accumulator, Count, Data,Base register). Instructions worked with specific regs only (xlat, loop). When 386 and 32 bits happened, the instructions became more generic and easily combinable with any register. I remember people raving over the power of the SIB byte or the possibility to multiply any pair of register. While not RISC, it got clearly more easy for compilers to work with the ISA, and I remember reading in magazines that this was an explicit design intention.
Post reply on HN