siruwastaken

So from what I am seeing in this with a brief look over it, the only cases in which data loss seemed to occur were when two clients were editing the same file temporally close to each other? I.e. you end up creating something similar to a git merge conflict, which cannot be solved automatically well, and thus can generate loss of data.

Legally finding plaintiffs, who can sue us for our illegal machinations is not allowed on our platform. What a world we live in. If this isn't the simplest demonstration of monopolization of social media that Facebook has, then I don't know what is.

How is this of interest? Has there been any reporting/user mentions of such an issue?

For anyone not interested in reading the whole article, apparently Apple is running out of binned, slightly damaged but still usable chips from earlier production, chips to use in the MacBook Neo series. So the actual problem is simply:

> In any case, Apple could opt to keep the starting price of current and future MacBook Neo models at $599 and simply accept lower profit margins on the laptop, especially given that it attracts customers to the macOS and broader Apple ecosystem.

A company having slightly lower margins does not seem like an actual issue. It doesn't even sound like they would end up loosing money on this device just lower their own margin.

Am I the only one finding this article highly suspect? It seems like the errors made are so basic, i.e. using the wrong SQL dialect for the db system in use, and there orders were apparently only at 17?

I'm probably showing my age here, but did these email worms largely die out due to spam filtering, or did the email programs just get better protections against viruses that made it more difficult to exploit? The only email "viruses" I have come accross today are actual humans accidentally replying "reply all" to a legitimate email.

This seems like the idea of modularizing code, and using specific function sighatures for data exchange as an API is being re-invented by people using AI. Aren't we already mostly doing things this way, albeit via submodules in a monolith, due to the cognitive ctrain it puts on humans to understand the whole thing at any given time?

Here I was wondering what OpenAI even gets from this particular piece of legislation, but alas it is just the CEO trying to get more money for his individual self.

What would that variety of reasons be? Genuinely asking.

Why are you replying to your own coment?

Location: Munich, Germany (willing to work remote in other timezones)

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No, at the moment (maybe yes in 2+ years)

Technologies: WebDev (mostly backend), Go, Python (Django), Rust (Rocket.rs), Sqlite, PostgreSQL

Resume/CV: www.linkedin.com/in/nboynick

Email: email [at] siru.ink

Web: www.siru.ink

I apreciate the fact that they mention that sometimes a commit change needs a fix before it ever even was pull-request ready. I think it would be great to have the ability to easily reorder/modify commits while in active development, and then lock them into permanent history afterwards. Apparently (according to the article) Jujutsu can do that, but I've never had personal exoerience with that VCS.

It's interesting to hear from people directly in the thick of it that these bug reports are apparently gaining value and are no longer just slop. Maybe there is hope for a world where AI helps create bug free software and doesn't just overload maintainers.