amake

> it doesn't work for transitive deps unless those are specified by SHA as well, which is out of your control

So in other words the strategy in the docs doesn't actually address the issue

> There's no Noto Serif for CJK characters

Yes there is: https://fonts.google.com/noto/specimen/Noto+Serif+JP

You said:

> blowing it up out of proportion is just as toxic

Making a false equivalency of the supposed toxicity of the commenter's post and the toxicity displayed in the article.

You can just take the L; you don't have to be performatively obtuse about it.

> You can be toxic at any level

And yet the context is extremely important.

> I didn't factor this in

That's how you get to false equivalencies.

> blowing it up out of proportion is just as toxic

One person decided that something wasn't for them. How is that in the same league as someone in a leadership position being unprofessional?

Might as well get rid of laws against murder because sometimes people commit murder anyway?

99% of my use of `satisfies` is to type-check exhaustivity in `switch` statements:

    type Foo = 'foo' | 'bar';
    
    const myFoo: Foo = 'foo';
    switch (myFoo) {
      case 'foo':
        // do stuff
        break;
      default:
        myFoo satisfies never; // Error here because 'bar' not handled
    }

“Pro” users are using containers, venvs, version managers (nvm, rvm, etc.). They definitely aren’t installing project-specific stuff directly to the system.

Your analogy is infinitely more baffling to me than OP's comment.

Really? Almost always I feel the diff captures only the how, not the why.

The Process is the Punishment

Why in the world do you think you are in a position to decide what is good?

Even Japan is mostly Unicode these days.

> It’s very much well known in the aviation community

Do you think the article is speaking primarily to the "aviation community"?

That's fundamental to the mission of Unicode because Unicode is meant to be compatible with all legacy character sets, and those character sets already included combining characters.

So "no combinations" was never going to happen.

What does "no combinations" mean?

That has nothing to do with UTF-8; that's a Unicode issue, and one that's entirely unescapable if you are the Unicode Consortium and your goal is to be compatible with all legacy charsets.

> That all went away with the helicopter parents

Insane to blame parents when Republicans have been destroying all manner of public goods for the last however many decades.

There is a local-only, no-signup-required executable available at https://languagetool.org/download/

They don't advertise this because they are trying to push their paid online services. I have complained about this, but they didn't seem to care.

And?

(More than?) half of the difficulty comes from the vocabulary. It’s very much a shibboleth—learn to talk the talk and people will assume you are a genius who walks the walk.

If it was self-evident then I wouldn’t need to ask for evidence. And I imagine you wouldn’t need to be waving your hands making excuses for the lack of evidence.

Using AI tools make AI tools is not the impact outside of the AI bubble that people are looking for.

> Those businesses are probably everywhere. They just aren't open about admitting

"Where's the evidence?" "Probably everywhere."

OK, good luck, have fun

> This is happening right now and it won’t be obvious until

I asked for evidence and, as always, lots of people are popping out of the woodwork to swear that it's true but I can't see the evidence yet.

OK, then. Good luck with that.

> All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that

OK, but I asked for evidence and people just keep not providing any.

"God is all around you; he just works in mysterious ways"

OK, good luck with that.

None of this seems relevant to the original claim: "Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects"

I don't feel like it's meaningful to discuss the "competitiveness" of a handful of bespoke local or internal tools.

> It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated

I feel like we'd be hearing from business that crushed their competition by delivering faster or with fewer people. Where are those businesses?

> But there are also local tools generated

This is really not the same thing as the original claim ("Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects").

> We have AI agents that have been trained to review thousands of PRs that are produced by other, generative agents, and together they have already churned out much more software than human teams can write in a year.

Was your comment tongue-in-cheek? If not, where is this huge mass of AI-generated software?

> #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects

Still waiting to see evidence of AI-driven projects eating the lunch of "traditional" projects.