smellf

Ubuntu's release numbers are not semver, they're year and month. 22.04 is the April release from 2022. Your LT is redundant, all 04 releases from even-numbered years are LTS. And people do frequently refer to Ubuntu releases by the code name, though usually just the adjective and not the animal - jammy, noble, etc.

So what you're saying is, "Python tooling isn't bad because I understand all the quirks"

I've had the exact same experience. In the before-time I often reflected on how my love of sqlite was borderline irrational for what it is. Now, in a few projects I've let the LLM do postgres, and it's so nice having the pain if a db server mostly just handled. Still choose sqlite for anything embedded or without a hosted server.

Srchr

I wonder how they can reconcile the stricter proposals with the LLM usage in kernel development. That seems totally untenable. I mean it all seems untenable, but with the kernel especially.

Also, what about when you inevitably get a situation where a critical vulnerability is discovered, and the only patch available is LLM generated? Do they have to wait to patch until some person who hasn't seen the LLM-generated patch does a clean room implementation?

I understand the objections to LLMs, but rejecting LLM-generated code really doesn't seem realistic.

You can have my `easy_install` when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

The "G" in AGI stands for "general", so talking about "AGI for software development" makes no sense, and worse than that accepts the AI companies' goalpost-shifting at face value. We shouldn't do that.

Isn't that kind of like saying my pressure washer is a non-ambulatory car?

Don't know how it compares to other manufacturers, but I've been pretty happy with the minimal BS that comes on my last two Sony phones.

I think the idea is that you'd have two independently-develooed systems, one LLM decompiling the binary and the other LLM formally verifying. If the verifier disagrees with the decompiler you won't know which tool is right and which is wrong, but if they agree then you'll know the decompiled result is correct, since both tools are unlikely to hallucinate the same thing.

> RK3588-based SBC

Anyone know which SBCs use this chip?

Nor even the comment they were replying to, lol.