> it's been a thing for at least a decade

Maybe in fancy theaters, but in most places it started during covid (and just never stopped)

"Most people" with EVs charge while they sleep, because right now it doesn't make as much sense to buy an EV if you're in the actual majority that does not have access to a garage you can install a charger in. That fact is one of the major things slowing EV adoption.

Those of us who live in apartments and charge our BEVs with public chargers also mostly charge while we sleep. If your battery is large enough for a week or two of normal use, leaving the car in a public AC charger overnight when you get down to 10% charge left is by far the easiest. And AC chargers are generally also cheaper than DC chargers.

I charge at the school across the street, it's a 3 minute walk from there to my house.

Granted, it's a tiny bit of a hassle compared to before when I had a charger at my parking spot - but not a massive issue. Mostly the problems come from people parking their ICE cars in front of the chargers because they're too lazy to find a parking spot.

> the rule of law does not strictly exist in China, the state can compel surveillance cooperation regardless of what might be written down

While I agree that China is obviously worse in this regard, it's naive to claim this is unique to China, when literally a couple of months ago the US got into a fight with Anthropic about them not removing safeguards which were already just enforcing the letter of the law.

Everyone else is already pointing out how competent over unique is purely a positive, so I want to criticize the other implicit assumption here.

This comment is just a rehash of the increasingly outdated and incorrect assertion that LLMs can't possibly exhibit any creativity -- and it's also incorrect.

If you're yearning for "old skool artisanal weirdness of yore", look up the trend on Twitter a month or two ago of people asking Claude to make YTPs. They ended up very weird and artisanal in a way distinct from how any human would do it.

Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me if I come off a little curt here, but-- I disagree strongly with how this was phrased.

"Generative AI" isn't just an adjective applied to a noun, it's a specific marketing term that's used as the collective category for language models and image/video model -- things which "generate" content.

What I assume you mean is "I think <term> is misleading, and would prefer to make a distinction".

But how you actually phrased it reads as "<term> doesn't mean <accepted definition of the term>, but rather <definition I made up which contains only the subset of the original definition I dislike>. What you mean is <term made up on the spot to distinguish the 'good' subset of the accepted definition>"

I see this all the time in politics, and it muddies the discussion so much because you can't have a coherent conversation. (And AI is very much a political topic these days.) It's the illusion of nuance -- which actually just serves as an excuse to avoid engaging with the nuance that actually exists in the real category. (Research AI is generative AI; they are not cleanly separable categories which you can define without artificial/external distinctions.)

This is so strange, because, at a low level, a branch isn't even a "thing" in git. There is no branch object type in git, it's literally just a pointer to a commit, functionally no different from a tag except for the commands that interact with it.

Meanwhile mercurial has bookmarks. TBF I'm not sure when it got those but they've been around forever at this point. The purpose is served.

I think there are (or perhaps were) some product issues regarding the specifics of various workflows. But at least some of that is simply the inertia of entrenched workflows and where there are actual downsides the (IMO substantial) advantages need to be properly weighed against them.

Personally I think it just comes down to the status quo. Git is popular because it's popular, not because it's noticably superior.

> I think there are (or perhaps were) some product issues regarding the specifics of various workflows.

I love jumping in discussions about git branching, because that's a very objective and practical area where git made the playing field worse. Less and less people feel it, because people old-enough to have used branch-powered VCSes have long forgotten about them, and those who didn't forget are under-represented in comparison to the newcomers who never have experienced anything else since git became a monopoly.

Anyhow, let's pick django as a project that was using a VCS with branches before moving to git/github, and have a look at the repo history: https://github.com/django/django/commits/stable/6.0.x

Yes, every commit is prefixed with the branch name. Because, unlike mercurial, git is incapable of storing this in its commit metadata. That's ridiculous, that's obscene, but that's the easiest way to do it with git.

Just because there is one project apparently using this in a way that indicates someone could perceive something as a weakness... It doesn't mean it's a real weakness (nor that it's serious).

You can just not move branches. But once you can do it, you will like it. And you are going to use

   git branch --contains COMMIT

which will tell you ALL the branches a commit is part of.

Git's model is clean and simple, and makes a whole lot of sense. IMHO.

> Less and less people feel it, because people old-enough to have used branch-powered VCSes have long forgotten about them, and those who didn't forget are under-represented in comparison to the newcomers who never have experienced anything else since git became a monopoly.

I'm old enough to have used SVN (and some CVS) and let me tell you branching was no fun, so much that we didn't really do it.

That's the definition of a tree though. Everything has a parent, no cycles allowed.

> If another model can find the vulnerability if you point it at the right place, it would also find the vulnerability if you scanned each place individually.

They didn't just point it at the right place, they pointed it at the right place and gave it hints. That's a huge difference, even for humans.

> That said, a well-designed scaffold naturally produces this kind of scoped context through its targeting and iterative prompting stages, which is exactly what both AISLE's and Anthropic's systems do.

Unless the context they added to get the small model to find it was generated fully by their own scaffold (which I assume it was not, since they'd have bragged about it if it was), either they're admitting theirs isn't well designed, or they're outright lying.

People aren't missing the point, they're saying the point is dishonest.