kunley

Non-paywall version, please?

The issue with Github is that they never denied feeding ai with private repositories. Gitlab, on the contrary, issued an official statement that they don't.

EDIT: here is one statement from Gitlab https://forum.gitlab.com/t/can-i-opt-out-from-my-code-being-...

I thinl I also saw another one

The big issue with Github is that they never denied feeding ai with private repositories. (Gitlab for example did that when asked). This fact alone makes many users bitter, even for organizations not using private repos per se.

So will Bun devs now be obliged to stop coding and only manage ai-driven code, like Anthropic devs say they are?

Or perhaps they have in their agreement that Anthropic's own rules don't apply to them?

Serious question, in all this madness

There is this: https://youtu.be/AdI4DMRFkm4

Although here he admits "he is not properly trained as previous Karmapas" that's not exactly the statement i claimed

There was also another one with a stronger statement, somewhere during covid, I need to dig more

The distinction is simple: music, as examined already during the times of Pythagoreans, invokes a soothing feeling of harmony, peace and belonging, while the mentioned "sounds with beat" (a non-technical term in this case) invoke body reactions like dizziness and anxiety. Check for yourself at a nearest shopping mall vs a concert hall.

There are 4 main schools of Vajrayana Buddhism: Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug, and the Dalai Lama is head of just one of them - Gelug. They have independent teaching transmissions and succession lines. There's common misconception about Dalai Lama being a kind of a "pope" for Buddhism at all, or for the Diamond way (that means Vajrayana) Buddhism in particular, which is simply not true.

Having said that, it is of course unfortunate that the issue with two candidates, one of them "manufactured" by the PRC regime, is on the horizon and most likely will happen. Please note this already happened for the Kagyu lineage, where two Karmapa candidates emerged in 90s; interesting that after few decades the Chinese one admitted recently he's not the real one.

This statement strikes me... but not the way you intended.

We should say: most rapidly adopted ... speculation.

Because this is what it is: not a technology, but speculation.

Hint: technology has repeatable results.

QED ;)

How do you know what kind of "understanding" a python has? Why python and not a lizard? Or a bird? What method do you use for evaluating this? Does a typical python do what you tell your ai agent to do?...

C'mon, this comparison seems to be very, very unscientific. No offense...

Can't wait

Who is "we", this magical entity eager to accuse somebody for classism and/or racism? Who are you speaking for? Because for sure not for the entire HN user base

The crucial issue is: what kind of music. A lot of what's nowadays called music is actually rather a "sounds with some beat" category.

He's real and his blogs on Haskell, Erlang and poker bots were discussed here, during HN's infancy, as well as on early reddit. (I just remember this name from those days).

Having said that, I don't understand why he insists on behaving the way he does now

You helped someone with Python, and what evidence do you have justifying your claims about alleged Go stdlib narrowness?

> Why not take it further and not update dependencies at all until you need to because of some missing feature or systems compatibility you need? If it works it works.

Indeed there are people doing that and communities with a consensus such approach makes sense, or at least is not frowned upon. (Hi, Gophers)

Why the word "semblance" with regard to Go modules? Are you trying to say this system is lacking something?

No. I am tired of seeing people dragged into poor quality environments for the wrong reasons. These people would do much better using other tools.

Your attempt to make it personal does not compute.

Why the biggest package mess is always with the Node ecosystem?

Why in particular this community still insists on preemptively updating all deps always, on running complicated extra hooks together with package installation and pretending this all is good engineering practices? ("Look, we have so plenty of things and are so busy, thus it must be good")

Why certain kind of mindset is typical to this community?

Why the Node creator abandoned his creation years ago?

Why, oh why?

Btw reading Racket documentation is a pleasure each time, both visually and intellectually. So great effort

Let's revert the self-scrutiny trend and actually enjoy a fellow mentioning his downvote. At least I am enjoying, your perception is valid.

The level of apologetism with regard to ai is depressing in this article.

Exactly. One can open the inspector and see the values.

Last time I've checked, kubectl debug would not attach if namespace sharing wasn't enabled in the first place. Has it changed? What k8s version are you using?

PS. Even without checking again, it would be surprising if it changed. Even the official documentation is mentioning that this is needed

Please note the analogous mechanism on kubernetes ("ephemeral containers") works only with the pod's shareProcessNamespace: true setting, which is usually off. So you won't be able to do this out of the box with your deployment already running on a typical stack

You don't have any reasons to call me a zealot.. yet. Symmetrism doesn't work.

You wrote so many paragraphs but at the end it's clear for me that you're talking about improving the code for the sake of improving the code - and not where you decide but where language authors decided (because they have changed something).

This one even predates CSS.

Background images, tiled, to the rescue!

Well I called it a zealotry not as an insult but to redirect your attention to how this style of expression is seen by others. For instance:

> In other words, the only reason to not use zig if you detest upgrading or improving your code

So you were saying that my own ways of upgrading or improving my code are ruled out, because the only way is via rewriting it for every new language release, right? That's the kind if religious statement I am against.

> Code you write today will still work tomorrow

No it will not and wasn't so far. Where is the room for exchanging the views and experiences if statements are contradicting the facts?

Lot of people focus on a similarity to jq et al, I guess the author had his reasons to craft own stuff.

Kudos for all the work, it's a nice language. I find writing parsers a very mind-expanding activity.

Zealotry in almost every paragraph.