This is one (of several) reason why many larger open source project ban or severely restrict the usage of LLMs. They want contributors to fully understand the changes they are making.
Recently we have received several bug reports with AI suggested fixes. They looked reasonable enough and seemed to resolve the issue at hand. I then took a deeper look and discovered that every single suggestion only hid the symptom but did not address the underlying issue. Applying the suggested fixes would have hurt our codebase, so I eventually had to reject all of them and write my own solutions. This was only possible because I'm deeply familiar with the codebase and the broader context. Someone with less knowledge would have probably just applied the LLM suggestions without much questioning. I find this rather worrying.
I guess in popular open source projects the stakes are just higher than in some proprietory software that will be replaced in a few years anyway. The irony, of course, is that LLMs have mostly been trained on open source code.
Also, some of the projects I'm involved in are over 20 years old. One even celebrated it's 30th anniversary. This means there is also the question of historical responsibility.
I actually watched it as a kid on Eurosport. It also had the dubbed over commentary. The original has lots of comedy bits between the games, most of them were cut in the German version.
> They're using commands, shortcuts, scripts, etc.
Yes, power users often use shortcuts and automation, but how is that an argument against GUIs?
It simply depends a lot on the actual task. Certain things absolutely require a (high fidelity) graphical interface. Other things can be done just as well (and with less distraction) in a simple TUI. You can't generalize.
In (soft) realtime audio programming, your audio callback might only have a time budget of 1.3 milliseconds. Everytime you exceed that limit, you'll hear a dropout. That's when you'll start to optimize the hell out of your program :)
you're highly unlikely to make friends once you're an adult and everyone's walls had gone up. most of those 4/5 just call their superficial acquaintances "friends". a real friend is essentially a platonic partner, and most people are lucky if they develop even one such friendship in their lifetime. I've lost one to distance and another to marriage, so even though I have "friends", I consider myself to be in the 1/5 too.
There are certainly different degrees of friendship. I might only have one such platonic partner and unfortunately we hardly see each other anymore because we live in different cities and have families. Once in a while we talk on the phone, but when we do it's a minimum 2 hour call.
However, I have several people I would still consider close friends. My personal threshold for true friendship is whether I can comfortably talk about private things.
Back to the study. I don't think it uses such a high threshold as 'platonic partnership'. I found the following paragraph really striking:
"What these numbers also reveal is the hidden depth of the crisis. The 17% with zero friends in 2024 — compared to just 1% in 1990"
Do everybody suddenly get higher standards of friendship? Or did people really get lonelier? I find the second more likely.
> you're highly unlikely to make friends once you're an adult
People keep saying this but that's not my experience. First, it depends on how you define adult. I have only one close friend from my school days, but I met most of my best friends at university and I don't think I'm an outlier in this regard. It probably gets harder once you're in your thirties and start a family. But once the kids get older and you have more time for hobbies again, there are still many opportunities to find friends. Maybe it won't be a deep platonic relationship, but at least it's someone who shares your interests and that you can meet and talk to in real life.
I love their albums! I was lucky enough to see them live 1-2 years ago. They performed their latest album and they still got it! Their satirical approach to sampling translates well to the 2020s.
You have claimed that "last year exactly zero developers used this convention." If you choose to use hyperbole, don't be surprised when people push back.
> I don't think I have a single "feature/*" branch before 2024.
You might not, but other people have. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't assume that your personal experience is representative of the whole world of software.
reply