I wasn't conversing in the first place, I'm just bored of reading through exchanges where at some point someone says Aha! That's a fallacy! Got you, I win!
I know you weren’t. Which was my point: the conversation was not shut down. If pointing out someone’s manipulation is not OK to you, then you’re probably better off trying a different discussion board.
No it doesn't? I've written commit messages ending with 'Co-authored-by [Claude]' a few times, in acknowledgement that it was largely 'vibed' and I only reviewed and committed it. I've never had Claude Code run `git commit`.
the models now commit because they think it is what we want, they are "relentlessly proactive" as simonw puts it, I now have to have instructions so they do not commit and push
The person I replied to described their frustration with a colleague dismissing an error message without reading, not a user. I'm not shaming users not providing clear actionable feedback with stack traces and reproduction steps. I've known fellow software engineers throw their hands up and ask for help because they're 'getting an error', that's what's annoying (because they should know better, ok what have you done before asking me, etc.) not users.
Is the Motorola partnership that they're ensuring support in the phone, and helping the port with docs/support perhaps, or is it even actually shipping with GrapheneOS?
They're implementing all of the features required by GrapheneOS, are helping us port GrapheneOS to the devices and may help us maintain it. They'll provide us with the drivers and firmware needed to support it too. Selling devices with GrapheneOS is planned but the details and timeline aren't worked out.
Wouldn't OHA agreements prevent shipping a non-Google-certified Android? Unless you mean a future device with GrapheneOS might potentially go through CTS and ship with Google apps preinstalled?
OEMs are fully allowed to include official support for GrapheneOS and sell batches of devices to companies selling those devices with GrapheneOS. It isn't hard to work around Google's licensing terms. It's already being done by multiple OEMs today.
Google's licensing terms are also clearly a blatant violation of antitrust law. The licensing terms have already been invalidated in multiple countries including South Korea. Samsung is no longer bound by the same terms, which isn't fair to other OEMs.
I've never talked to someone for it, and I would've first done it in something like 2008. (It's 'always' been done by SMS, well before 'apps' that might let you (and I don't recall it on websites).)
Doesn't that just effectively make you that person? The alternative is surely simply saying we haven't historically tracked that, should someone join and want it.
Not quite sure what you mean by that, I'm not the one making decisions of who to cut. That's one to many levels above me.
Your stated argument would make sense if you're dealing with reasonable people. Which is sometimes.
But I'm talking specifically when shit hits the fan and people levels above me put down a mandate across many divisions.
As it is if they're making cuts they'll grasp whatever metrics they can and cut. If they don't have metrics that gives less protection, not more.
Take "as you can see I have X number of staff fully allocated and up to their eyeballs in work" vs "I don't have that metrics but trust me". That's part of my job or responsibility depending on my seniority to justify my team and keep them employed and not stressed by cuts and workload.
Sorry, I was referring to your first paragraph, about someone new coming along and caring about metrics retroactively not previously cared about.
My point being that by proposing the solution 'so we should care about them, in case that happens' you effectively are (or are equivalent to) that person, you're making it happen sooner (and for sure).
The alternative is that they lay off everyone because the entire team doesn't have metrics for the work they've done. The kind of person to single someone out who hasn't been tracking their work may not be likely to just up and forgive the entire team if they've all done it that way.
What is meant by 'superhuman intelligence'? Certainly it seems to be the case that LLMs are capable of a sort of 'polyhuman' intelligence, in that the same LLM that advances mathematics with a novel proof can add unit testing for a new software feature, design a recipe, and create an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle. As generalists I'd say they're already 'superhuman'.
An exercise in understanding gpt2, flexing the author's cmake skills, while demonstrating the absurd complexity of what it allows similarly to 'c++ templates are turing complete' or 'doom on my calculator'.
reply