Hehe, good point.

people need to read more code, play around with it, break it and fix it to become better programmers.

I think AI bots can help with that. It’s easier now to play around with code which you could not write by yourself, and quickly explore different approaches. And while you might shy away from asking your colleagues a noob question, ChatGPT will happily elaborate.

In the end, it’s just one more tool in the box. We need to learn when and how to use it wisely.

Much like that comment. Can you give a better example, or express why it’s a bad example? That would bring some quality in.

FYI you can self-host GitLab, for example in a Docker container.

Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.

You can use more debug outputs (log(…)) to narrow it down. Challenge your assumptions! If necessary, check line by line if all the variables still behave as expected. Or use a debugger if available/familiar.

This takes a few minutes tops and guarantees you to find at which line the actual behaviour diverts from your expectations. Then, you can make a more precise search. But usually the solution is obvious once you have found the precise cause.

A dark sense of hope here: At least some of us are able to adapt quickly.

You might honestly have meant it as a joke. Others bring up the point genuinely frequently. It makes sense to address it as such.

Does he know?

you cannot define a “real man” as all men are real.

If we acknowledge gender, then we must acknowledge this idea by the same logic. Both are social constructs about the sexual identity of a person, disconnected from their biology.

I think that’s one of the best use cases for AI in programming; exploring other approaches.

It’s very time-consuming to play out how your codebase would look like if you had decided differently at the beginning of the project. So actually comparing different implementations is very expensive. This incentivizes people to stick to what they know works well. Maybe even more so when they have more experience, which means they really know this works very well, and they know what can go wrong otherwise.

Being able to generate code instantly helps a lot in this regard, although it still has to be checked for errors.

There’s a very naive, but working approach: Ask it how :D

Or pretend it’s a colleague, and discuss the next steps with it.

You can go further and ask it to write a specific snippet for a defined context. But as others already said, the results aren’t always satisfactory. Having a conversation about the topic, on the other hand, is pretty harmless.

Those LLMs are great fools, but I am just paranoid to use it in that manner.

Exquisite typo. I also agree to everything else you said.

You can do that when you control the frontend UI. Then, you can set up the input field for their name, applying input validation.

But I would rather not rely on telling the user, in hopes they understand and comply. If they have ways to do it wrong, they will.

Then null will be returned, as the value of b.

Yes it is. Search the internet, ask people, go to suitable places. Or lower your expectations. These things only seem appealing until you confront them with reality.

Find like minded people, go away from civilization. That's basically it! If you want that, you will find a way.

Most people still live in a state close to that. And unlike us, who can freely choose how much civilization we want, they cannot.

Most people also prefer to have civilization, with some hygiene, security and comfort. But if you really want a simple life, it's basically free.

I really think it's worthwhile pursuing if it's a dream of yours. You either manage to live a happier life, or learn to appreciate what you have.

You can still go and live that life. Even at the difficulty of your choice! It's just that you prefer to be a "wage slave" instead.

From the article:

we learn that the entire observable universe – the area that sits within the “Hubble radius” is also on that line. In other words, if a black hole was as large as the universe we can see, it would have the same density as the universe.

Not saying any of this makes sense, but you seem to be working with different assumptions.

Another narrative could be: As mass gets added to the black hole, it (the universe) grows.

The whole concept of industry co-writing laws and regulations has utterly failed. How much precedent do we need?

Lobbyists are not counselors, it's just legalized corruption. This is not a healthy part of democracy, but eroding trust.

It's working against the people.

Yeah, like https://www.livescience.com/space/mars/nasa-may-have-unknowingly-found-and-killed-alien-life-on-mars-50-years-ago-scientist-claims

But Schulze-Makuch believes most of the experiments may have produced skewed results because they used too much water. (The labeled release, pyrolytic release and gas exchange experiments all involved adding water to the soil.)

"Since Earth is a water planet, it seemed reasonable that adding water might coax life to show itself in the extremely dry Martian environment," Schulze-Makuch wrote. "In hindsight, it is possible that approach was too much of a good thing." In very dry Earth environments, such as the Atacama Desert in Chile, there are extreme microbes that can thrive by hiding in hygroscopic rocks, which are extremely salty and draw in tiny amounts of water from the air surrounding them. These rocks are present on Mars, which does have some level of humidity that could hypothetically sustain such microbes. […]

But too much water can be deadly to these tiny organisms. In a 2018 study published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers found that extreme floods in the Atacama Desert had killed up to 85% of indigenous microbes that could not adapt to wetter conditions.

Therefore, adding water to any potential microbes in the Viking soil samples may have been equivalent to stranding humans in the middle of an ocean: Both need water to survive, but in the wrong concentrations, it can be deadly to them, Schulze-Makuch wrote.

It was also discussed on Lemmy. Wish we could link to posts.