I don't even need to watch that video to be reminded of the tagline - "Audacity says no!". Agreed this is a great watch for pretty much any developer.

Quit Sibelius

They should make the catalog online and available so people know how they can help.

I wouldn't exactly describe one person as "the government".

I mean ... currently I would? The environment will be different soon

Does every single one of these posters have a cartoon avatar? What's going on here?

what's wrong with cartoon avatars...? im not sure i follow

Where did I say something was wrong with them?

I do think it is worth questioning why an entire thread is filled specifically and exclusively with cartoon character avatars. Pick a thread, pretty much any thread on bsky with 20+ replies and I believe you'll have trouble reproducing these results. I have had trouble finding one.

Feel free to locate some and point them out to me. Let me know how many threads it took you to find one. I am genuinely curious.

My guess is they are hobby artists who think that AI and piracy are the only things preventing them from making it big. There’s more of these out there than you would think.

If you look at the quality of their avatars it becomes clear why they aren’t making money as artists.

I didn't quite want to say it myself since I've been so negative sometimes lately. But it was something I noticed and picking a random profile to view was pretty stomach turning.

But I get there is backlash. Not everyone lives in the bubble HN does. Not even everyone here is accepting of AI. I don't even know where I stand many times. But something feels off about this response. It's certainly looking brigaded.

On my home feed was another AI announcement. Few comments. Zero hate. And I definitely expected more there.

Paint.NET is (partially) art software. The art community has a negative view of AI. Therefore announcements of AI use in Paint.NET get a negative reaction, more so than something like AI startup #491000

I see your point, but I always got the impression that Paint.NET was a barebones image/photo editor for power users. Typically something full featured like Photoshop, Krita, or Illustrator would be more in the art software camp, IMHO.

A basic AM/FM radio does receive radio, but you wouldn’t lump it in with a Yaesu or even a Baofeng.

I’m just surprised to see so many strong opinions from people who probably don’t even use the software (although they pretend they do).

The problem with demoting it lies in its beauty. Pluto is beautiful and interesting. We want it to be important. But instead of being the "last of the planets", maybe instead it should be the first of the dwarf planets.

There are many ways you could make a principled argument in that direction and I would agree in lots of cases. But retro-computing is a varied field with lots of different interests. Many of those are simply enthusiast curiosity.

So I will say this. Back in the days of 80x25 terminals, I was adamant that larger screens made you more productive. I don't remember anything but outright derision and skepticism in this regard. The saying "the monitor is the computer" meant a lot to me. The limitations of the day were defining but as developers we always wanted the best technology and tools available.

Doesn't this bring us closer to that?

That's certainly the hope!

Did you create this account simply to disparage a single company?

I had this conversation recently. Not only are search engines and comment threads getting filled with AI responses, but people are increasingly sounding like AI themselves. This makes it even harder to distinguish.

Related to code quality, I've noticed developers picking up tricks from AI. Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention. If any used paths in their branches, it was almost certainly their name. Now everyone uses this convention. Though, they do use correct capitalization instead of lowercase freaking _everything_ that AI does.

What. Strict branch naming like feature/, bugfix/, chore/, release/ has been the standard for probably 10 years now in all projects I've been in, often enforced by auto-rejecting pushes that don't comply.

I've used that style in 3 different companies over the last 10 years and I assumed the technique was ubiquitous. This just goes to show the standard deviation in engineering culture is high. There are some large bodies of water but also lots and lots of little isolated tide pools.

Yeah, we've had our CI only run pipelines on proper branch prefixes for many years, so if you for whatever reason had a wip/branch you wouldn't clog up our runners.

Never used it in any of the projects I’ve been on.

> Related to code quality, I've noticed developers picking up tricks from AI. Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention.

Huh.

I've been using that convention for ages, but I have to remind Claude on new projects to actually use git in the first place, and then also specifically tell it to use branches.

Then again, I was using em-dashes before they got un-cool.

I'm not sure why you're arguing that when it's not the point of the statement. YOU have been using that convention. Now do an analysis of the people at your company.

Regex the pattern over time if you want to make an argument against my supporting example.

> I'm not sure why you're arguing that when it's not the point of the statement.

'twas an expression of surprise, not an argument.

Surprise in both directions, 'cause what you like about Claude is one of the ways it fails for me.

> Now do an analysis of the people at your company.

It was mandatory at several of them.

> Regex the pattern over time if you want to make an argument against my supporting example.

I wonder which of the various employers I've had in the last decade would consider me regexing commits to be an NDA violation?

I choose not to discover.

I think this comes from Conventional Branching, https://conventionalbranch.org, inspired by conventional commits (e.g. https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/)

And my point is that this pattern is now more popular than it was 3 years ago. Similar to people using the phrase "load bearing".

For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry.

Closing tabs and I came back across conventionalbranch.org. I know this isn't your argument, just passing on info.

But holy heck, I really have to argue with their literal first point. All lowercase, for what reason? It's never explained why they insist on a dated convention instead of proper style.

And in what world is "feat/" abbreviation considered allowable?

I lump this in with advice from people who put their source in a src/ folder instead of Source/.

> Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention.

The AI learned it from somewhere though, it didn't come up with it on its own

I've been using it at work since we moved from TF source control to TF-Git, close to a decade ago. feature/ticketno, release/number and user/initials/...

TF at least gave a nice folder view on the branches screen, which we've lost now we've moved to GitHub, but it has made it easier to enforce.

I think gitkraken is the only tool I use that presents it that way currently. It's a good convention.

I think this is just a Jira/bitbucket thing. If you add a feature branch, that's how the naming convention defaults. I've been seeing it for years.

I assumed the convention came from somewhere before AI and maybe one of the new devs brought it in from there. We also have an analyst who used em-dashes before AI ruined them, and who justifiably complains about that every so often. I'm not sure that's a trend anyone wants to pick up on.

But for branches in addition to Feature/, we're seeing Hotfix/, Modernization/, you name it. If you're parking branches for a long time without completing them, I'm 100% appreciative they're categorized.

The original git flow suggestion [0] was posted more than 15 years ago (date on the post is 2010). It didn't entirely invent the branch names/conventions from whole cloth, it was based on plenty of prior history in SVN spaces especially, which it picked up from CVS.

(Personally, for long term parked branches I prefer `{username/dev name}/` branches because then you know who the owner is without having to look at the commit log and guess based on recent commit authors. But that's the fun thing about branching conventions, there are so many to choose from, many of which have been around forever.)

[0] https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Linear does this, too. It provides a button that copies a branch name to the clipboard based on the ticket id/name.

> Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention.

People have been doing this for years.

> People have been doing this for years.

Tell me something I don't know. My point is that it's usage has seen a _measurable_ increase where I work over the last two years.

I don't think I have a single "feature/*" branch before 2024. Developer names, feature names, sure. But specifically feature/, no.

If you use "Feat/" at my company you will get called out. No abbreviations allowed. Capitalization matters.

But that doesn't change my argument. For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry.