Different people have completely different experiences as they perform different tasks, that shouldn't be difficult to understand. It's a bit like the purported degradation of quality of Google search. It is still excellent for me but I don't doubt that others are experiencing it.

If different people are allowed to have different experiences why are you only getting one set of experiences be controlling?

This is a problem with all the OSes.

I disagree. KDE and Gnome both have pretty consistent UI strategies. You may or may not like them but they have clear identities and design guidelines and follow them.

GTK1, GTK2, GTK3, GTK4, GTK5. Qt1, Qt2, Qt3, Qt4, Qt5.

Yes, those are all different versions of the underlying widget frameworks. I don't understand your point. My current GUI is KDE Plasma 6.6. The only libraries I have installed are Qt 6 (which I am not sure why you didn't list). I have no need for version 5 or 4, or any other. The GUI is consistent.

When I last used Windows, on a fresh install, I saw a mixture of different frameworks used for core OS components from the same vendor.

When I last used OS X, it was pretty consistent but I hear complaints from friends that its no longer the case.

Amusingly, talk like caveman being discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47647455

It was still likely possible to have retained the originality and novelty of the first site without succumbing to the plague of our contemporary blandness.

You're not wrong. The 2011 version had character. Google+ icons, chat per city, a people search engine. It felt like a place, not a tool.

The tradeoff was deliberate though. Serving 261 countries in 4 languages with an API and MCP Server pushes you toward structure over personality. But I do miss some of that original energy.

I wonder if we ought to be flagging it then? There's already so much uninteresting AI slop observations.

> embarrassingly simple

This is becoming the new overused LLM goto expression for describing basic concepts.

Depends on what you're using it for, a small model could be viable as long as you're willing to absorb the maintenence overheads of running and deploying your own inference. A simple API would be much more cost effective especially if there are scaling requirements and time constraints.

Use for support chat bot. I see a lot of open source models. Not sure if it's worth it. Reply via API from LLM should be better?

I would recommend adding a delay to your dependabot updates and grouping the updates together into one pull request. Despite the noise produced it's a useful tool in that it calls for your attention.

It's all in the configuration: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/reference/supply-ch...

"Embarrassingly" has a history as a technically meaningful word roughly equivalent to "maximally", see "Embarrassingly parallel"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassingly_parallel

The phrase embarrassingly parallel has a history in computer science.

Many computer science paper titles allude to past titles in other CS papers.

Calling it “cringe worthy” is unnecessarily mean. There is context and history you don’t understand.

"Embarrassingly" considered harmful?

"Embarrassingly" considered harmful is all you need.

Programming Introduction to "Embarrasingly" considered harmful is all you need in 21 hours.

Cringeworthily parallel, not even serial

Little to nothing of what you're describing is related to ms. Any provider is legally obliged by DMCA and other providers do so when served with a notice. The discussions were taken down by the maintainers because the infected tar were being posted there.

As for the controlling infrastructure, once again that's on us for coalescing onto a single platform. The tool itself allows for distribution by its nature, but we as a mass of technologists are choosing to gather there. This happens no matter the platform owner, and you'll see it in other themes too.