tempfile

> this is an acknowledgment, not a victory lap

> That’s well outside Automerge’s comfort zone, and this note is about what happens out there.

I am once again begging people who generate notes like this with LLMs to review the output critically. The examples above are wholly meaningless sentences, but the article contains enormous redundancy and is not easy to read. The actual point, that merging requires context, is not stated explicitly until more than half way through the article and does not need to be restated in 8 different ways.

The inconvenience is always with the person writing the package. When you restrict the build to a sandbox, if it fails, it's because the package actually depends on the thing the sandbox is limiting (usually network requests during the build). To fix this problem, the package has to change. This is why e.g. NPM does not roll out sandboxing.

What does "scanning for malware" mean? As far as I know this is a totally open question, and the only credible answers (install in a sandbox) are too inconvenient for widespread adoption.

I disagree. Maintainers for the major distributions take their roles very seriously, and do a very good job generally of filtering out malicious packages. The AUR is an outlier, being essentially an unmaintained wild west.

If you let your cat outside, please put a bell or something on them. The average cat hunts far more than they eat, and generally destroy local bird populations.

> So, it sounds like nothing of much value has been lost.

Do you actually mean this? To me this sounds like someone said "you never learn anything by reading a high school essay", and you reply "so stop writing them". The point is not the product, you obviously train people by making the product.

> AI is starting to show that the emperor called academia has no clothes.

Seriously, what are you talking about. Academia in the last century has been the most successful engine of knowledge and technology in human history. Lots of papers are junk, like lots of businesses are junk, lots of books are junk. But I don't know how any serious person can say academia has no clothes.

I'll answer in reverse order.

I think what you suggest works! Putting it in the wording of my original comment: Mary IS 24, Ann WAS 12, and the same amount of time gets you from 12 to Ann's current age, and from Ann's current age to 24. I think it is obvious from there that you're half-way between, so Ann is 18. Thank you!

The part of your earlier comment I consider gibberish has nothing to do with the problem.

> It's slightly different, because you've supercharged your hammer.

This does not mean anything.

> Everything you ever understood about how to solve word problems has been subsumed into what your brain labels as "algebra."

This is bizarre speculation. Why are you analyzing my brain? I just asked for an explanation!

> Did you use algebra to convert the problem to algebraic form?

As you say, this is impossible to do, because it doesn't make sense. So why bring it up? It sounds like you are trying to convince me the problem is not algebra - or that I am in some way only seeing it as algebra because I am not thinking about the problem clearly. But I never said it was! I just said I can't see how to do it without algebra. Since you mixed those things up, I clarified by saying exactly what sense I was talking about algebra in the first place. Clearly that didn't work!

Again, thank you for explaining your reasoning, I appreciate it. Just leave out the analysis of my mind!

Parental controls on devices are not hard because they are intrinsically hard. The companies just do not care about them, because nobody has forced them to be implemented sensibly. There is absolutely zero reason an Android device could not have a shiny button saying "Kid's device" when you set it up and never need configuring again. So this is not a criticism of the approach, and only a criticism of the companies.

> This makes it a bit easier to realize that Ann’s age has to be right in the middle of 12 and 24.

How did you actually make that deduction? I can only see it by writing down an equation. I can't see anything in the problem that directly implies it.

It's not cheating, but it's not enlightening either.

Sorry to say, the first half of this comment is almost gibberish. It became algebra when I introduced an unknown variable and wrote down an equation. I can't see a way to solve the problem without doing that.

> If X is Ann's current age, then the problem setup is: 24 - x = x - 12

How did you get this equation from the problem statement? The equation is of course correct, but I don't see how you would derive it, other than writing down a more obvious equation and rearranging it.

Mary IS 24. So Ann WAS 12. Say that was X years ago. Then Mary WAS 24-X and Ann IS 12+X. So 24-X=12+X, X=6, Ann is 18.

I can't see a way to do it without algebra.

> Did you?

I don't think so. They say the rules are vibes-based (or just wrong). That means you cannot use the rule to draw conclusions. That does not mean "the opposite of the rule is true" or anything like that. Nor does it mean that the AI companies resemble Uber in any significant way. They are just saying that since the rules are not real, you cannot say something like "this business will obviously fail, because it has bad fundamentals". The fundamentals are only part of the equation.

Yeah. Uber's a successful company and they raised a J round. Therefore the rule (D means Death) is not real. I'm not sure what you're implying, or if you just misunderstood the original comment?

What do you think the real price is? Subscriptions are heavily subsidised, I don't know anyone who would deny that.

There is "absolutely no way to stop" the thing that requires hundreds of billions of dollars of cash injected every year just to avoid falling over?

Being poor correlates with adverse health outcomes. If you insist (as you do) that those health outcomes are due entirely to culture and willpower, then you are forced to conclude that poor people have low willpower and are less moral. This is an unprovable assertion, based entirely on your own vibes, and is frankly a cruel thing to say. It basically asserts that these people deserve the things that happen to them, because they were avoidable and entirely due to their choices.

This is not a celebration of human agency. When people are treated badly, they behave badly. It is completely irrelevant that you were treated badly and happened not to behave badly. People are far too complex for you to say "well, we got treated the same, we should have behaved the same".

Right, but we know that HIV/AIDS essentially is a solved problem in rich countries, that the mentioned interventions are readily available in rich countries, and the only reason HIV transmission is high in poor countries is because, well, they're poor. We (humanity as a whole) have plenty of money, we could fund these things, we simply choose not to.

I would caution against making an allusion to self control. It would be very cruel to act as if people who get a disease through no fault of their own could have avoided it, and most people who contract HIV could not. You may not have intended to make that allusion, but you did.

> So I would say that it's very evidently not a practically solved problem, because if it were we wouldn't be looking to solve it still.

This is obviously not what is meant by "practically solved problem". Everybody knows it is not actually solved.

Very disappointing to see people rush to cynicism, with no effort at all to put blame on Netflix. I get it, you're stupid if you think your employer has your best interests at heart. Why does that mean they get a pass?

This is not whataboutism.

Nobody said they negate each other. The comment being discussed is fearmongering about China and is very relaxed about the USA. All we're saying is you should be either afraid of both or relaxed about both. China is not worse than the US.

Surely you can just google this.

Sure, why believe anything?

What study do you base your worldview on?

>> although participating developers felt they completed tasks faster using AI, they where around 19% slower

> Maybe that was true in 2025, but it's clearly not true any more - I feel so productive now!

Even if you are right, this is a completely baseless argument. The people in the study felt the exact same way! And "it's 6 months old, so I won't listen to it" is an insanely high standard. You're eliminating all the evidence!

Ugh, they're just goodmaxxing.

You absolutely can. How do you know your "working lean proof" actually proves the theorem you intended it to?

Hallucinations are an essential feature of the technology, they cannot be "solved". You may as well hope that we solve the halting problem.

This deduction is baseless, there is no reason to think an LLM will only hallucinate on complex topics. They still get the "number of es in seventeen" question wrong regularly. The kind of mistakes an LLM makes has no clear resemblance to the kind of mistakes a human makes, because they are not doing the same thing.

Email and phone, or email or phone?