But that means you haven't actually done anything with the PR, it is a hypothetical thing.

Hopefully you have perfect CI coverage since you didn't bother to compile your PR even.

This flatly isn’t true.

Each individual PR gets tested and merged the same way they would if you’d authored them one by one in the first place.

The combination is merged in your tree well in advance of a PR ever being made. When the ancestor PRs are merged, you just pull and your descendent merge commit is rebased automatically.

At no point are you pushing untested code that you wouldn’t have pushed in a similar git workflow.

I mean so it is identical to how I already do this...

If I am pushing a PR with a working combination and rebasing after upstream merges how is jj changing the flow?

> LLM's now can capture intent.

Humans cannot capture intent so how can AI?

It is well established that understanding what someone meant by what they said is not a generally solvable problem, akin to the three body problem.

Note of course this doesn't mean you can't get good enough almost all of the time, but it in the context here that isn't good enough.

After all the entire Asimov story is about that inability to capture intent in the absolute sense.

Noctua fans have a distinct look, you could say the same about black, if you want to black them out just get a case that hides them since that would look the same.

Which is why they focus on getting a fan out before adding a second color

Calling people idiots for having different taste? You truly are a muppetman.

Exploits of a local machine with hardware access are a dime a dozen.

For most things everyone assumes if you can run arbitrary code you already have total effective control. That is why the gold standard is RCE remote code execution not root.

Privilege escalation is a problem but is the majority of the vulnerabilities found so far. And it is really only a problem in mixed environments where you are expecting to run untrusted code.

Isn't breaking the sandbox the hard part?

RCE is effectively "can run code" which is just JavaScript if you ignore the sandbox.

"They have a long history of long rants attacking people and projects" in response to a long post...

You are very much saying that OP is an attack post.

Or at least implying the point that it is tonally dissonant to claim otherwise.

If you didn't believe it was wrong you would comment on the post but you are explicitly avoiding doing that.

> I hate it because typically that style of writing was when someone cared about what they were writing.

I dont understand these takes. The opposite is true - humans good at writing who care about writing never produced these kind of texts.

People who dont care about writing, but need to crank up a lot of words would occasionally produce writing like that. Human slop existed before ai, but it was not the thing produced by people who write well and care.

You are effectively claiming that either:

AI created unprompted the eloquent speech it uses or that AI stole the unpopular style of eloquent speech from people who didn't know what they were talking about.

Neither of which is true because you are mistaking shit posts on social media as what everyone is talking about when discussing "AI posts".

I don't terribly care about replies or other short messages in this context. Wasting 30 seconds isn't worth complaining about.

But wasting 15 minutes trying to build up a mental model of a proposed solution only to realize it never existed is another thing entirely.

I always felt like humans that were good at writing that way were often doing exactly what the LLM is doing. Making it sound good so that the human reader would draw all those same inferences.

You've just had it exposed that it is easy to write very good-sounding slop. I really don't think the LLMs invented that.

Revisionist at best.

Sure some people could write well but didn't have a clue but they failed to maintain interest since once you realized the author was no good you bounced once you saw their styled blog.

Now they don't care as they only want the one view and likely won't even bother with more posts at the same site.

Exposed, and also dominating the majority of text being “written” every day. Would we say they invented the scaling and spread potential of slop?

"Evil" merged are only evil if your tooling skips over merge commits as "unimportant" which is a common tactic to try and prune some of the crazy trees you get when hundreds of people are making merge commits into a repo which then creates its own commits for automation reasons...

That is kind of the point of Pijul, first class support for "how do I combine these" which git mostly discards as unimportant.

But for a lot of work at scale (or people) mixing bits is important.

Don't address introduce ambiguous locking order across attempts?

While not obviously problematic, that seems weird enough you would need to validate that it is explicitly safe.

If I need to grab 100 locks, they are all moving around a lot, but I've got the first 10, will the order be the same for someome trying to get the same 100? Eg maybe someone swaps two that neither of us has grabbed yet.

That makes sense you could only move locks that are "after" all taken locks