Sacho

I'm not sure there's anything novel about that approach - it's how I've addressed issues quite commonly when assigning them to team members. If you don't prime your preconceived notions on your coworkers(or AI in this case) and let them do their own evaluation from scratch, you can find gaps in yours and their understanding much easier.

What makes you unhappy about this process?

> The Linux Mint Timeshift tool has an issue open documenting a number of regressions that are currently open on the rsync issues page, that were only introduced post-vibecoding

Hi fao, the issue you linked starts with:

> Rsync 3.4.3 and newer is AI slop, and currently has several open security vulnerabilities and other critical bugs (including some link-related ones) caused by said AI slop:

It then proceeds to link to multiple functional regressions caused by (theoretically) fixes to security vulnerabilities.

This took me about 10 mins to review. It seems that the person who created the issue did not bother to spend 10 minutes to check his own work. Is this "vibe reporting"? What should we say about the irony of employing "human slop" to trash "AI slop"?

Further ironically, the "aggregate of bugs" in void-linux included an issue that was not even about rsync. More "human slop" that you are happy with?

Their mission critical software has bugs in it - security issues, which the rsync maintainer is trying to fix. In his attempt, he introduced regressions*(maybe - because some of the reported regressions list exactly the security issue that is being fixed as their use case...). This happens every day to thousands and thousands of software projects. This is why we have pinned versions, release schedules, different release philosophies...none of this is new.

I don't understand what novel problem you think you've uncovered here.

> It's like people telling you they will paint your house for free, even though the color of your house is perfectly fine

You are perfectly capable of saying "No, I like the color of my house already". Just pin rsync's version. This isn't some esoteric mechanism, it's standard practice.

If you were actually willing to charitably engage, tidge was working on fixing security bugs - your house had holes in it already! Your choice was to say I'm fine with the existing holes, or yeah please try to fix them. Unfortunately while fixing them he introduced some new ones, but hey, that's the nature of software development - sometimes you introduce new bugs when fixing old ones.

Again, this isn't some esoteric happenstance. It's so banal it must happen thousands of times per day across many other maintained projects.

If Rsync is complete software, why aren't you pinning the version and avoiding any problems with updates?

Perhaps there's people that don't consider it complete software; they can bear the burden of the new releases while you stay on the old and complete one. This has been normal software release and use practice for decades. Whole Linux distributions are built around different philosophies on software releases.

And yet you're making an argument as if this is something novel...

The bugs were introduced because rsync had security issues(i.e. bugs) in it, presumably written into the code by humans.

It's really baffling to see so many people in this thread maintain the position that somehow software was clean and pristine until AI touched it with its evil.

Please try to at least put some sort of constructive argument forward, for example - I don't like AI because it might introduce more bugs than a careful human reviewer. Then we could discuss why a single maintainer is responsible for rsync and how they should handle the pressure of keeping it up to date - should they just stop making further changes, should they look for tools that might help them?

(By the way, if your position is that rsync was perfect before AI got its hands on it, you have a clear solution to all your problems - simply do not update to any newer versions)

Either way, move away from this absolutist nonsense that has no bearing to reality.

What were you trying to say? Because what you wrote is what parent responded to.

> there is no evidence that tridge did this regression testing

What evidence would you be looking for? New tests, like the ones added in the AI-assisted commits? What other evidence?

> If tridge did test for regressions, but chose not to document the regression

Presumably you weren't trying to imply here that tridge found a regression and decided to ship the code anyway; so parent went to a natural assumption - do you think testing for regressions finds all regressions?

Tunisia and Libya are not part of the EU.

This article was written during a time where the idea of a semantic web was still bright and strong. Scrapable HTML websites would have been at the forefront of interchange ideas then.

Gitlab implements this compensation model openly(to the point where there is a calculator for it!) - I don't remember how well it was received when it was first announced, but looks like Google is applying a similar idea.

You really can't make a categorical statement like that. I prefered living in an apartment because the housing density meant I had a grocery store, a farmer's market, and multiple other commercial hubs within walking distance. It also meant that street planning gave priority to public transport and pedestrians. There were plenty of jobs available within reasonable commute times. My neighbours gave me an easy-to-access network of people that you could befriend and somewhat rely on.

There's so many positives to living in an apartment that are pretty much direct effects of the denser housing.

No, you can't just move - the US collects taxes from citizens even if they live and work outside of its borders. You could renounce your citizenship, perhaps, I don't really know if/how that works.

You most likely do - founding a corporation is trivial in most European countries and the US. But you don't even need any of these things to get "access to the same loopholes" as "the 1%" - buy some stocks and hold them. You've now achieved the same tax "avoidance" that the ProPublica article is talking about.

One of the most jarring things about violence in SA is that the crimes are usually property related, but there seems to be a complete disregard for life by the perpetrators. Robbers will quite often gun down their victims or security, even if they're not trying to actively resist. I don't really know what the cause for this is.

Umm okay. Which country do you want me to compare it with? How about some from Africa?

SA - 36

CAR - 20

DR Congo - 13.5

Uganda - 10.4

Nigeria - 10

How about some poor countries from Europe?

Ukraine - 6.1

Bulgaria - 1.3

War-torn countries in Asia?

Iraq - 10

Afghanistan - 6.6

It's difficult to compare crime statistics due to the nature of what is criminalized being different, but the numbers for South Africa are stark enough for this to not matter.

Here's a report from the SA police on crime for 2020 - https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/421424/south-afri...

I can see that there were 22k murders on a population of about 60 million.

I couldn't find USA crime statistics for 2020, which has seen a surge of murders; but the 2019 statistics show 19k murders on a population of over 300 million. Even taking the increase into account, that's a factor difference of x4-5.

Here's wikipedia's page on intentional homicide rate by country - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

SA's rate of 36 for 2018 is only surpassed by countries in Central America, like Venezuela and Honduras. The US's rate for 2018 is 5.

No way. Modern research has demonstrated how unstructured and unscientific our reasoning is, easy to fool and game, falling prey to a plethora of biases. If anything, rejecting your own and other people's personal experience should be the default, because the information we gather when not taking the utmost care to calibrate our instruments is pretty much garbage. A quick example of this would be how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in trials, but of course the sightings of various unproven phenomena(sasquatch, loch ness monster, etc) are also a great example of our "personal experience" being put to the test and found to be useless.

To me, it's more plausible to believe that the world we "experience" practically does not exist, and our memories and perceptions very rarely match reality, than to concede that these particular collective personal experiences amount to evidence of anything.

The evidence in question is shaky at best, but even taking it at face value, it's evidence of...something. Our limited understanding and ability to collect and categorize information, perhaps. It's quite the stretch for it to be evidence of aliens, particulary of the kind that can be covered up by a government conspiracy. The whole theory is based on incredibly shaky foundations - we struggle to define what is sentience(what if we're not sentient? what if stars are?), what is life, whether there even is life in the solar system, what that life would look like(why would it use spaceships?), whether it would be even detectable with our senses and apparatus, and many more questionable assumptions to arrive to our concept of aliens "visiting" us.

"Somewhere in the middle" would be "yeah, I don't know what causes that, but neither do you" - that leaves us pretty much nowhere, very very far from aliens.

The two articles you list actually agree with each other - the second one is basically a more thorough argumentation of the points raised in the first one.

For example, the first article agrees that "async is colored"(despite the title), but that the big issue of "colored" functions, "You can only call a red function from within another red function", doesn't exist in Rust. This is also a major point in the second article.

I think a more accurate description would be that Rust async is informed by painful async implementations(Javascript) and has tried to avoid most of their shortcomings.

I don't disagree about this use of defamation defense leaving a bad taste(it's been used by Trump to great success as well). I looked at the original complaint(https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do...) and I don't think there's any claim that alleges she made provably wrong factual claims. They do allege that she based several of her opinions on likely false(or missing) evidence, which is promising, but the bar they need to pass is purposefully high - they'd need to prove she knew the evidence was false(or lied about it existing).

Let's try to do it differently. One solution is to only allow truthful statements - this would most likely catch Powell. But that means you have to litigate every defamation claim on its merits, you would need a trial for each to determine whether the statements are "true" or not. Consider the complexity of the Oracle vs Google case, how difficult it is to establish facts in front of a court. Now imagine every giant corp brings defamation lawsuits against its detractors - sue all the random bloggers trying to bright to light that your medicine doesn't work, or that you're using child labor. Of course you have "mountains of evidence" against it, or at least you can claim so, and force a lengthy trial against people who can't afford it. How would you tackle this problem?

Even worse, what if you publish an extensive expose, but some of your facts are wrong? This is actually what happened in the decision that paved the way for the modern defamation defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) Back then, it was the government trying to silence civil rights activism, nowadays it's more and more large corporations that would rather not have their dirty laundry aired. I genuinely don't see a way to amend the standard without sacrificing a lot of freedom of speech in the process.

What would have happened if Theranos sued all the publications that exposed their nonfunctional product? Would the publications even risk publishing if defamation suits always hang over their heads?

It doesn't sound like it. It's point two of the original complaint(https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do...):

> Powell’s wild accusations are demonstrably false. Far from being created in Venezuela to rig elections for a now-deceased Venezuelan dictator, Dominion was founded in Toronto for the purpose of creating a fully auditable paper-based vote system that would empower people with disabilities to vote independently on verifiable paper ballots. As it grew, Dominion developed technology to solve many of the technical and voter intent issues that came to light as a result of the 2000 Presidential Election. Its systems are certified under standards promulgated by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), reviewed and tested by independent testing laboratories accredited by the EAC, and were designed to be auditable and include a paper ballot backup to verify results.1 Since its founding, Dominion has been chosen by thousands of election officials throughout the United States to provide the technology to effectively administer transparent and fully auditable elections

I couldn't find Powell's exact statements, but they seem to be some convoluted link between Dominion and a different voting system manufacturer. Unfortunately this particular claim is very difficult to prove defamation on; Dominion's a public figure, so as long as Powell presented some sort of flimsy evidence, she can claim that her opinion was based on it. It would require a finding of "actual malice", that she absolutely knew the evidence was wrong, in order to claim defamation, and as you can imagine, that's a very high bar.

What's more likely to hurt her is number 4, where Dominion claims she used a forged document as evidence. If they can somehow prove that she was aware the document was a forgery, then they seem to have a reasonable chance of success there. Fortunately, in a motion to dismiss, the judge looks at all evidence as favorable to the plaintiff, so perhaps a few of their claims will survive. We'll see, and IANAL, but even if I was, this isn't legal advice :)

Sure, I get how it sounds weird. But how would you amend this standard to catch the bad people like Sidney Powell, while also allowing critique of powerful, wealthy individuals and corporations? The defamation defense(and it's related anti-SLAPP laws) have been refined over years of public discourse against snake oil salesmen and big corps trying to hide their dirty laundry. If you don't allow people to say something along the lines of: "here's my source, here's what conclusions I draw from it"(the essence of Powell's defense), then how would you allow speech critical of bad businesses?

Keep in mind, you can make anything sound ridiculous with some writing skills. How about an alternate headline - "Dominion tries to silence people claiming flaws in their voting system"?

There's nothing strange about this defense, it's quite literally the standard defamation defense. What's very strange is that what tentatively appears to be some sort of law journal is using such a click-bait title for a bog standard motion to dismiss a defamation complaint.

Here's the motion to dismiss, since it's not available at the link from the article: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-...

The meat of the defamation defense is around page 27-28. The tl;dr is: Powell's statements were opinion, not fact, and she provided the factual source that she was basing her opinion on - classic free speech, classic defamation defense.

I certainly get the funny part about politicians(well, lawyers in this case) being untrustworthy, but defamation is purposefully narrow to allow more speech in the arena, not less. It's not so funny in a different case where a quack brings a defamation suit against the blogger exposing their product as bullshit, or when a giant corp decides to silence people online critiquing their awful business practices.

I think you forgot to finish your thought:

- The site is hosted on Yandex

- Yandex is owned by the FSB

- Therefore, visiting the site is unsafe because..? The FSB will embed an exploit in it in attempts to hack you? Because you will divulge private information(beyond playing the game) to the FSB? It's unclear what the threat you are trying to combat is.

This is besides the point(I am ready to believe for the sake of argument that Yandex is indeed owned by the FSB), but the wikipedia page you linked doesn't seem to support your argument. It seems like Yandex is trying to thread the needle between legal law enforcement requests and the safety and privacy of their users. Here's the full quote you ellipsed:

> In June 2019, RBC News reported that Yandex had refused a request by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) under the Yarovaya law to surrender encryption keys that could decrypt the private data of its e-mail service and cloud storage users. The company argued that it was possible to comply with the relevant law without compromising its users' privacy.[82] Maxim Akimov, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, said that the government will take action to relieve FSB pressure on the company.[83] Alexander Zharov, head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, subsequently said that Yandex and the FSB had reached an agreement where the company would provide the required data without handing over the encryption keys.[84]

What law is this breaking?

Have you read the Post-Chaplinsky section of the article you cite? (Unless you meant to focus on the Canadian/Australian legal meanings). The US Supreme Court has been progressively narrowing what "fighting words" means over the years.

By the way, the "fighting words" decision(like the other oft-favored "fire in a crowded theater" quote) are great ironic examples of what kinds of speech you are looking to suppress - a Jehova's Witness swearing at police, and a protestor against the draft in WWI. You don't need to be imaginative to see how these "reasonable limits to free speech" will be used negatively, you only need to look at what they were created for.

Is Github on the hook if the client is actually a resident? If so, the law is still bad and github's response may be appropriate(just blocking login from Iran sounds better though). You can't expect them to investigate the personal details of their users.

I apologize in advance because you seem to be emotionally invested in this, but I really do not understand the questions you pose in your comment. What did you actually expect from the discussion? Were there not enough comments against Coinbase? Were there not enough comments outraged about the perceived racist behavior of it? Do you think none of those commenters "imagine the possibility that racism is a problem in America in 2020"?

Let's assume that I am 100% certain of all the accusations. How many types of comments do you expect to see about this? Condemn the company, point out systemic racism doesn't just affect Coinbase but everything, offer condolences and sympathy, support efforts to reduce racism. All of these comments exist in the thread.

What if I don't believe all the accusations are true? There are multitudes of reasons why that could be the case, which reflects in the number of possibilities being commented on. By your own contention, racism is a problem in America, so you would expect at least some of the comments to be racist, or at least controversial. You seem to have focused only on the worst ones, ignoring the discussions that followed them, whether positive or negative. You've ignored all the nuanced positions or straw-manned them. You're dismissive of people's comments or concerns while simultaneously asking people to not be dismissive of your concerns. I really don't get it.

Am i misreading the stats? Deaths involving flu is at 6k, deaths involving covid without flu is at 100k.

In my country, which is a tiny part of Europe, there is an election every month. There's over 100 countries with a larger population. Some of the largest countries are so large that they would undoubtedly have elections pretty much constantly. How are you going to decide which country's elections should be throttled by Facebook?