The problem is not doing it, the problem is feeding an AI generated text here.

You have no idea what is actually true. All of what you said could later turn out to be false, once we learn more about the universe. So while this is a fun speculation based on current knowledge, it may effectively be completely useless in the future. And right now, it doesn’t even give any actionable arguments for anything.

Instead of letting the large language model think for you, I would suggest to try critical thinking for yourself. I sincerely mean this in a kind way, because if you continue with this, you may become a drone like the ones we talk about here, and I wish that on nobody. I know this current path is easier/more convenient, but sometimes one has to choose the harder path to arrive at a better result.

That’s what they’re saying:

When deployed, the soldier is launched into a designated hunt-zone. He navigates purely via visual landmarks. His brain constantly screens the nerve data from his eyes. When an object matches its classification matrix (e.g., a specific mobile missile launcher), the organism locks onto the pixel coordinate, arms the ESAD, and executes a terminal dive completely dependent on human input.

Katy, take your spork and get back into your own shower.

I’m not talking about the work contributors do, obviously that is invaluable.

But if you do a review, and you see that a function should be extracted at one point to avoid code duplication, is it really faster to tell the contributor that a function needs to be extracted there, compared to just extracting it yourself as you see it?

The value of a review is collaborative truth finding and learning. If there is an LLM on the other end, that’s just not happening.

That is just mostly wrong. Around 90% of the time, when you do a review, just fixing the issue that you found is much faster than writing a review.

Reviews plainly are for educating the contributor to what constitutes good code on the repo. If that wasn’t the case, you could just not do a review and just change the code, without any interaction at all. Why would you communicate the change that needs to be done otherwise?

Rarely of course, something is so complicated that it actually takes more time to come up with the right code than do a review. But that is only a rare thing.

It’s quite obviously cheaper to not make it replaceable, otherwise they would do it globally. Companies are not that spiteful when it comes to money. The battery is probably already theoretically replaceable by repair shops with special tool or whatever, there was just an opening in the hull missing. So it’s likely just one or two pieces that have to be manufactured differently, the rest can stay the same.

Not YouTube, Soulseek. Nicotine frontend. Use a VPN.

The inane thing is being able to skip semicolons. Exactly, why should anyone bother with that. We wouldn’t have this conversation. So yes, this is valid criticism of JavaScript, it’s not a very important one at all, but still.

If you desire to interpret my comment as “shitting on people”, that is your prerogative. However, that is not how I meant it.

Thinking about things is great, and that opinion is actually contained in my comment, if you look closely: I want people to think, just not about things that aren’t really worth it.

To expand on this: Ideally you would work in a language you didn’t have these inane rules about semicolons, like the article is obviously good and correct, but it’s just not something that anyone should have to think about, it doesn’t lead to better programs.

Tl;dr: just put a semicolon at the end, and you never need to think, this is just not really worth it

Well, this is in the context of people choosing to accept donations as an open-source developer. Taking donations requires opt-in, I would assume someone like you just wouldn’t take them in the first place.

However, I’m sorry that they make you uncomfortable or even guilty, because that sounds to me like you think you don’t deserve them. Which to me, is sad, because the other person making the donation definitely thinks you deserved it.

But they don’t produce output

I would argue that this is not even close to true.

As an open source developer myself, my contribution to open source is pretty much exactly proportional to how well I’m feeling. Getting a donation makes me feel appreciated, using the money makes me feel better, all leading to me being more motivated to spend time on some open-source.

Obviously, being able to only work on open-source would generate more output, but the psychological part of feeling appreciated to output can’t be dismissed and is huge.

Not really, they did give their lives. The propaganda part is what they gave it for.