That’s the lesson we should be learning, but I’m worried the lesson we’re actually learning <sees 18yo crypto bro drive by in a Lamborghini> is that regulations hinder innovation.
Doesn’t that 10m lag make it seem more like insider training? An automated trade would happen nearly instantly, 10m is plenty of time for insiders to send some texts or make some calls.
I'm not sure if I'm the one to blame for this or not, but the earliest reference to ".gitkeep" I can find online is my 2010 answer on Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/a/4250082/28422
Dummy empty files such as .keepme were used in CVS repositories for exactly the same purpose, and probably other version controls systems long before Git existed.
The Peter Cederqvist manual recommended the practice.
Yeah... I don't think you were wrong. Having 100 tiny gitignores makes finding out why something is excluded annoying. Our policy is one root level gitgnore and gitkeeps where required.
Some devs will just open the first gitignore they see and throw stuff into it. No thank you.
I like to make a .local folder at the top of the project, which contains a .gitignore that ignores everything. Then I can effortlessly stash my development notes there without affecting the project .gitignore or messing around within the .git directory.
You can create a global gitignore in your home directory. I have ‘.<myname>’ ignored there, so if I ever create a directory with that name I know it’s contents won’t go into source control. That way I don’t have to edit the repositories gitignore with me-specific stuff.
You wouldn't have to edit the actual repositories gitignore anyways. Every checkout of a repo comes with a .git/info/exclude file, which acts like a local additional gitignore file.
Upstream never sees an empty .local folder because, as established, Git doesn't keep empty folders. This way, .local isn't mentioned in the top-level .gitignore. It's just that tiny bit cleaner.
I agree with you. Empty .gitignore would be a "smell" to me. Whereas .gitkeep tells me exactly what purpose it serves. I like the semantic difference here that you describe. I don't like when multiple .gitignore files are littered throughout the codebase.
It's especially funny since my answer is wrong anyway! The other top answer is much better. I did get a lot of early SO brownie points from that one answer though.
>It doesn’t really matter who wrote it, human or LLM. The only responsible party is the human and the human is 100% responsible.
Yes it does.
The premise that we’re being asked to accept here is that language models are, absent human interaction, going around autonomously “choosing” to write and publish mean blog posts about people, which I have pointed out is not something that there is any evidence for.
If my house burns down and I say “a ghost did it”, it would sound pretty silly to jump to “we need to talk about people’s responsibilities towards poltergeists”
I don’t get your analogy. If you paid the ghost $20/month for its services and configured that ghost to play with fire with no supervision, then it is 100% your responsibility that the house burned down.
The point is that if somebody says a ghost burned their house down it is much more likely that they are lying than it is that they have discovered objective evidence of the existence of ghosts.
Similarly, there is no actual evidence that a language model, absent any human intervention, chose to autonomously write and post a mean blog post. It is far more likely that a person got mad and wrote a mean blog post than it is that we have witnessed the birth of a whole new phenomenon that is somehow simultaneously completely emergent and also has only happened one time.
Sesame Street is still putting out new episodes. Turns out the "learn to count" and "be nice to your neighbors" industry wields a lot more power than anyone thought.
Lockdown mode works by reducing the surface area of possible exploits. I don't think there's any failures here. Apple puts a lot of effort into resolving web-based exploits, but they can also prevent entire classes of exploits by just blocking you from opening any URL in iMessage. It's safer, but most users wouldn't accept that trade-off.
If you did RTFA for this story, you’ll see on page 67 what I pasted with a link to the support article describing to end users exactly what’s blocked. It does greatly reduce the attack surface.
Good rule of thumb: it should take less time to consume content than it does to create it.
I don’t know how long it takes Ciechanowski to create these explainers, probably a few months? It shows and it’s well worth spending your time reading through his content meticulously.
How long does it take for an LLM to crap out an equivalent explainer? 60 seconds? You should be spending less time than that reading it.
> you probably understand what people are trying to say when they talk about "chemicals"
My understanding is that when someone complains about "chemicals" in their food, it's because they've seen something they don't understand on the ingredient list and are scared of it.
reply