It has the exact same bug as mentioned above. I solely use the spacebar for cursor movement, and the cursor returns to the end of the line/word at random times. I couldn’t find a pattern when it happens. It’s especially annoying when it happens with something long like a long path in a URL bar.
On iOS safari, it just says “Allow access to Google Drive to load this Prompt”. When I run into that UI, my first instinct is that the poster of the link is trying to phish me. That they’ve composed some kind of script that wants to read my Google Drive so it can send info back to them. I’m only going to click “allow” if I trust the sender with my data. IMO, if that’s not what is happening, this is awful product design.
Redis and Elasticsearch were both built by Israelis, and there is also Israeli code in important projects like the Linux kernel. And of course, also Israeli contributions in closed-source tech like CUDA. Avoiding all of that is a pretty tall order. But if you want to impair your systems by purifying them based on national origin of the contributors, have at it.
In fact Elasticsearch was specifically mentioned as a partner of the "Gaza Humanitarian Foundation", a fake aid org who caused many Palestinians to be killed under their watch. (Elasticsearch denied involvement when I contacted them)
But to be more specific I would narrow it down to avoiding using any tech which Israel could use for surveillance, narrative control, or harm.
To the best of your ability. If you can avoid Israeli tech then do so, if you can't at least you try. Also opensource technology is different because you can verify and audit the tech
People spend their time and resources developing drugs because they know that the patent system provides them an opportunity to earn a return. If drug patents weren’t enforced, GLP-1 would have never been developed. We could rug-pull the particular companies who own GLP-1 patents by removing patent protection after the fact, that would work to improve access to these particular drugs. But then the next lifesaving drugs won’t be developed, because there will be no prospect for a return.
Similar to how doctors save lives and earn a paycheck. We could stop paying doctors, enslave them to work 18 hours 7 days a week so more people get medical care. On top of being obviously evil and wrong, it would also be counterproductive, because then nobody would become a doctor.
Put simply, drugs cost money because money is how we direct resources as a society. There is not a cheat code where we can simply make the drugs free and still expect resources to magically appear and manifest the drugs. The drugs exist because we pay for them.
I share the feeling that it’s awful that people are blocked from access to these lifesaving drugs by money. But simply eliminating patent protection is not a workable solution. It needs to be accompanied by a replacement mechanism to incentivize drug development. For example, government gives out massive prizes to the drug developer but there is no patent protection.
The New York Times (the corporation, as a legal person) has the right to freedom of the press, not just individual humans who work there. This is good, because it means the entire institution is protected. Not only is the government forbidden from arresting the humans for operating the printing press, it’s also forbidden from sanctioning the corporation for hiring humans to operate the press. In other words, freedom of the press applies to corporations (eg. the Times) as well as human persons. I think you and the commenter you responded to both agree on the fundamental claim here, although you might disagree about the semantics of whether “corporate personhood” is a good way of describing this concept.
I think you’re generally correct about the function (“the press” is both Joe/Jill Journalist and the NYT), but I think you’re giving GP’s comment a much better reading than I can.
Can you be more specific? What would it mean for the New York Times (the corporation) not to be protected by the first amendment? The government can sue the New York Times Company for what it prints as long as the government doesn’t prosecute the humans who work there?
The existence of corporate personhood has been settled law in the United States for over a hundred years, and all nine current Supreme Court justices agree with it. There’s controversy on exactly where it applies, with cases defining the boundaries of what rights corporate persons have. I don’t think the example I’m giving here is likely to be contentious.
Ok, there’s the terminology used by the legal community (including all nine justices on the Supreme Court) and then there’s people who dislike the terminology because they saw a misleading speech about the issue on the Daily Show.
If you ask them to break it into blocks, are they not going to submit 10 more AI-generated PRs (each having its own paragraphs of description and comment spam), which you then have to wade through. Why sink even more time into it?
Being AI-generated is not the problem. Being AI-generated and not understandable is the problem. If they find a way to make the AI-generated code understandable, mission accomplished.
How much of their time should open source maintainers sink into this didactic exercise? Maybe someone should vibe-code a bot to manage the process automatically.
I think breaking a big PR up like this is usually fair
Sometimes I get really into a problem and just build. It results in very large PRs.
Marking the PR as a draft epic then breaking it down into a sequence smaller PRs makes it much easier to review. But you can solicit big picture critique there.
I’m also a huge fan of documentation, so each PR needs to be clear, describe the bigger picture, and link back to your epic.
There's probably also a decent chance that the author can't actually do it.
Let's say it's the 9000 lines of code. I'm also not reviewing 900 lines, so it would need to be more than 10 PRs. The code needs to be broken down into useful components, that requires the author to think about design. In this case you'd probably have the DSL parser as a few PRs. If you do it like that it's easier for the reviewer to ask "Why are you doing a DSL?" I feel like in this case the author would struggle to justify the choice and be forced to reconsider their design.
It's not just chopping the existing 9000 lines into X number of bits. It's submitting PRs that makes sense as standalone patches. Submitting 9000 lines in one go tells me that you're a very junior developer and that you need guidance in terms of design and processes.
For open source I think it's fine to simply close the PR without any review and say: Break this down, if you want me to look at it. Then if a smaller PR comes in, it's easier to assess if you even want the code. But if you're the kind of person that don't think twice about submitting 9000 lines of code, I don't think you're capable of breaking down you patch into sensible sub-components.
Some of the current AI coding tools can follow instruction like “break this PR up into smaller chunks”, so even a completely clueless user may be able to follow those instructions. But that doesn’t mean it’s worth a maintainer’s time to read the output of that.
reply