A very good piece that clearly illustrates one of the dangers with LLS's: responsibility for code quality is blindly offloaded on the automatic system
> There are some tests, and they are OK, but they are woefully inadequate for what I would expect of a critical auth service. Testing every MUST and MUST NOT in the spec is a bare minimum, not to mention as many abuse cases as you can think of, but none of that is here from what I can see: just basic functionality tests.
and
> There are some odd choices in the code, and things that lead me to believe that the people involved are not actually familiar with the OAuth specs at all. For example, this commit adds support for public clients, but does so by implementing the deprecated “implicit” grant (removed in OAuth 2.1).
As Madden concludes "LLM or not, we have to give a shit."
> A very good piece that clearly illustrates one of the dangers with LLS's: responsibility for code quality is blindly offloaded on the automatic system
It does not illustrate that at all.
> Claude's output was thoroughly reviewed by Cloudflare engineers with careful attention paid to security and compliance with standards.
> To emphasize, *this is not "vibe coded"*. Every line was thoroughly reviewed and cross-referenced with relevant RFCs, by security experts with previous experience with those RFCs.
The humans who worked on it very, very clearly took responsibility for code quality. That they didn’t get it 100% right does not mean that they “blindly offloaded responsibility”.
Perhaps you can level that accusation at other people doing different things, but Cloudflare explicitly placed the responsibility for this on the humans.
> We analyze cycle time, a widely-used metric measuring time from ticket creation to completion, using a dataset of over 55,000 observations across 216 organizations. [...] We find precise but modest associations between cycle time and factors including coding days per week, number of merged pull requests, and degree of collaboration. However, these effects are set against considerable unexplained variation both between and within individuals.
Eh, starting the clock at ticket creation is likely less useful than starting when the ticket is moved to an in-progress state. Lots of reasons a ticket can sit in a backlog.
I think Oskars point is that if you say "I just want a random number, I don't care how" you can't very well be upset the seed is bad as that would be caring.
Sort of. We have to understand what a SARA project is, how and where DSP would be employed, etc...hence why I mentioned its pretty niche. Radio astronomy, from my outsider understanding, is not something a newbie just walks in the door and picks up on. You have to have some experience with typical SDR use, data collection, etc.
Uh, they don't describe any problem though? The piece is about how everyone agrees the change is for the better, its only people in this thread that describe women and men woodworking together as a problem.
> I spoke with some men at the Man Shed in Edinburgh at Christmas and they mentioned that in the cases they had heard about where women had been let in the number of male members dropped.
Aside from that, just take a look at what happened. When women joined, the men responded by finding a men-only room to “escape” to. It’s hardly a great leap to think that some of those men will escape someplace else instead.
It only takes one time: a woman who sees a man as less than for admitting his weakness makes him never talk about that stuff around women again.
Unfortunately, there are many women who react this way, so the cycle continues. I don't necessarily blame women for this, it's more about the social expectations for men, the moment they violate that expectation and are "punished" for it, they follow it to the letter, because they then know what happens if they don't.
Phew, I have very rarely heard something so wrong. Women are absolutely not traditionally an emotional support for men. In fact, being vulnerable in that way as a man is just about the surest way to make most women suddenly quite uninterested. Every woman has a story where some important man cries in front of her for the only time. In his entire life.
Women want men to be emotionally open as it applies to supporting them. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade.
That may be the traditional role of a wife, though even in marriage a man who dumps all his fears and worries on his wife will soon find himself without one. Women want a man to open up and share his feelings, but in practice a little of that goes a long way.
But in any case, it's not the traditional role of whatever women happen to be in earshot.
The problem is you only need one woman yelling at you or causing drama, or one man getting overly friendly to get a very strong sense of having to be careful. Most people, male or female, are perfectly good people with some flexibility to take a bit of strife and emotional turmoil. A lot of the bad vibes between men and women are about a select few individuals or ordinary people in particularly bad moods causing traumatic experiences.
My experience has taught me trust and safety are important to women. Sometimes a man is not in his best state ready to provide that solid rock feeling. It is generally not a good situation if a woman feels she is bigger or needs to be bigger than the man and can't put herself in his hands safely.
That's because the genders aren't valued equally by society, so they don't permute. Once gender equality is established they could switched and the statements would be equivalent.
I dunno, generationally we may be correcting a problem that will soon no longer exist, or even invert.
Women are attending and graduating college in higher numbers than men in GenZ. Much of the man-o-sphere GenZ rightward turn seems to be resentment at society being sure what the use of men is anymore.
That is, from a very young age girls are told they can do/be whatever they want. Often now, boys are described in terms of what they can't/shouldn't be, or in how their very gender gives them a sort of ancestral debt of shame for wrongs done by the men of previous generations.
You'll hear left wing progressive parents in places like NYC tell stories like "my 8 year old boy came home from school crying because his teacher told hime everything bad that has happened in history was because of men" and stupid stuff that's unthinkable if it was reversed.
Men by and large are still expected by society to be the provider, and shamed if they aren't. Women generally won't "date/marry down" anymore than they ever did. But women are now achieving higher educational attainment than men. It's a setup for future societal disfunction, so I do think we do need to solve the male part of the equation after spending the last 50 years raising women up.
Yes, I know parents who wonder why the boys at school seem to have no ambition, and don't apply for scholarships and get involved in things as much as they used to. The same parents also notice that all the literature at school now has female protagonists--not half of it, but nearly all of it.
They don't seem to make the connection between these things. Boys at school are told to sit down and shut up (and take drugs to do so if necessary) so the girls can thrive, and they internalize that. Some people act as though this is reparations for the many years when the reverse was true. But even if they're right about the past, they're not improving the situation by swapping the injustice.
People have a hard time reconciling the difference between “raise group X up” and “knock group Y down”.
The former is a universal good and the correct way to remedy historical injustice. The latter is punishing people, literally, for the sins of their fathers.
There is of course complexity and some zero sum situations where raising X harms Y, but most of the world is not zero sum and you do not have to start from that default position.
>You'll hear left wing progressive parents in places like NYC tell stories like "my 8 year old boy came home from school crying because his teacher told hime everything bad that has happened in history was because of men" and stupid stuff that's unthinkable if it was reversed.
People are bashing their heads on the wall trying to figure out why young white men are moving towards the right in droves...and the best answer they can come up with is misogyny.
My son was the gentlest soul. He did city year to help inner city youth with their schooling. He has a very liberal sexuality. He loves and accepts everyone.
He has gone over to the dark side and I am heartbroken. The final straw was he built up a business from scratch, with the laid out plan that if he got it running and was successful he would run it. Once it was all successfully running the promise was broken and he was passed up because he was a white male (this was explicitly the reason. The business was in a high minority area and they felt it would look bad having a non-local white man running things as the product's identity was in part it's location). He dedicated years of his life sacrificing building a career somewhere else getting this off the ground and an explicit promise that was broken purely because of his skin color/gender once his usefulness/startup level effort and dedication had made the business successful enough that they could replace him.
After having to move cross country back home to restart his life purely because he was a white male (and in spite of him having been successful at building the business) he very much sees the world as white males versus the left that hates/betrays him. Remember this kid gave up a year to do city year to help raise disadvantaged minority youth up (and did many, many other things before deciding things were rigged against him).
He is not scapegoating anyone, and that you judge someone's view of the world being a character flaw on their part instantly instead of trying to have any empathy, is fucking gross to be honest. Do you think people with your opinion are being intentionally obtuse out of some sort of racism on their part (they feel uncomfortable with empathy for white males), or because they just lack empathy? My last statement is as valid as your sentence above and as helpful/insightful are yours (which is zero).
Okay. Let's say everything you said was true. Why is it acceptable for white men to say, "hey, I'm being discriminated against, I would like to oppress everyone else so I can feel better" instead of what historically oppressed minorities do which is advocate for the better of their demographic even in the face of opposition.
This difference in action is why I think that people have a hard time having empathy. These said to be white men are not pushing for bettering themselves by making an equal environment, they are pushing to better themselves by knocking everyone else down. We can't say that others would do the same in their shoes because they didn't.
Because the response they are receiving when they 'advocate for the better of their demographic (and the type of response that is turning them sour/disillusioned) is:
"Let's say everything you said was true" - iteria (needlessly implying it's a lie/not happening)
"someone is providing an easy scapegoat for their own problems" - tayo42 (implying what they are experience/feeling isn't real/valid. This takes some temporary bullshit that they are feeling and ends up ossifying it into ugliness/a horrible position/a shit worldview, and drives them into horrible online communities designed to take advantage of this all and feeding them into the trash right pipeline).
I'm not justifying it, I hate that I'm losing my boy into it, but I can only push so much without it pushing him harder into 'one side doesn't validate my feelings so I'm going the other way'. I think a little empathy from his peers would have gone a long way. Instead he was ostracized by his peers when he moved back home because he went through a crappy situations that seriously impacted his life and wanted someone to share a little empathy with him, because he was a white male asking for that empathy.
I can have a lot of empathy for someone who had explicit promises broken but apart from this sounding like a completely made up story it has no bearing on his skin color or sex. People are taken advantage of all the time and promises, even contracts are broken all the time. Your 'son' has taken the route of victimization rather than taking the high road. Getting screwed over is one thing, turning that in to bigotry is quite another. Like even if you were screwed over BY bigots its not a reason to become one.
Wow, glad you can tell I'm a liar based on absolutely nothing.
People can have down/shitty bits without just throwing them away/writing them off as irredeemable. Especially when they are frustrated over a specific event. Frustration that normally we try and help them leave behind. But for some reason in this situation 1. It's not true/didn't happen and 2. My son is trash for caring about it. I'm not around this stuff much, I don't do social media, I don't watch TV, and I live remote, but I'm getting a better sense of how my son went such the wrong direction over this.
Nowhere did I justify anything. I complained I want my son back and I refuse to write him off. Maybe check your lack of compassion, quickness to judge, willingness to write people off, and reading comprehension.
You first say "sounds like a made up story" and then you go on to assert that "it has no bearing on his skin color or sex"
Where are you even coming from with that?
The Op said directly "Once it was all successfully running the promise was broken and he was passed up because he was a white male (this was explicitly the reason"
> I do think we do need to solve the male part of the equation after spending the last 50 years raising women up.
When left-wing progressives talk about dismantling...let's just call it the "p-word", dismantling the expectations about what a man should and shouldn't be is very much part of that.
The system victimizes men as much as women, and we should be tearing that system down, not leaning back into it in a misguided attempt of trying to rebalance the scales.
>You'll hear left wing progressive parents in places like NYC tell stories like "my 8 year old boy came home from school crying because his teacher told hime everything bad that has happened in history was because of men"
I've never heard anyone say that happened but I've heard plenty of people say that they heard someone say that happened. I think it goes in the same file as "Litter boxes in classrooms so that furries can poop in front of everyone" and "It's illegal to be Christian in schools now".
Indeed, it seems doubtful that an org having so structurless meetings that they are struggling to write minutes is capable of having meetings for which minutes serves any purpose beyond covering ass.
> There are some tests, and they are OK, but they are woefully inadequate for what I would expect of a critical auth service. Testing every MUST and MUST NOT in the spec is a bare minimum, not to mention as many abuse cases as you can think of, but none of that is here from what I can see: just basic functionality tests.
and
> There are some odd choices in the code, and things that lead me to believe that the people involved are not actually familiar with the OAuth specs at all. For example, this commit adds support for public clients, but does so by implementing the deprecated “implicit” grant (removed in OAuth 2.1).
As Madden concludes "LLM or not, we have to give a shit."
reply