vsl

> they're a major indicator of AI writing.

For the illiterate, sure. Where do you think LLMs picked them up from?

Exactly. This is far better than your usual AI slop...

How? Step 1 is kinda problematic for that, no?

> I just do not understand why people - even when actively denying LLM usage - use the fucking em dash.

Because they are literate? Unlike the "em-dash means AI" illiterate crowd?

I'm not going to change my writing because some idiots who never read a novel or heard about typography think only AI does that.

Thing is, you WILL encounter refusals with Sol doing anything remotely adjacent to security work. Which for Codex Security is kinda... problematic.

Just a few days back, I was reviewing some small bit of legacy DSA signature verification code, to get a sense of how safe it is to reuse - purely defensive, precautionary work and the context of it was there. But I simply wasn't able to use Codex Security: it threw refusal tantrums on every step of the way. Even the reasoning went like "nah, this is false positive, this is defensive code hardening, I'll nuke the subagent and tell it so" , followed by a refusal.

In the end, I was only able to do partial review with vanilla Codex w/o Codex Security.

It wouldn’t occur to a Czech speaker to use caron standalone - it’s not an alphabet character on its own. It’s a combining Unicode code point.

The author is an unreliable narrator. The very first thing, the location of the script, can’t possibly be true (the app itself won’t be in per-user support data directory). They conflate things, they definitely don’t know enough about macOS to know to use sudo. I mean, they even rant about bog standard localization files…

You improve this skill by not using LLMs more and getting more experienced as a programmer yourself. Spotting problems during review comes from experience, from having learned the lessons, knowing the codebase and libraries used etc.

The LLM would, under that argument, be a transformative derivative work, which has important fair use implications (that don’t exist in the chardet case)…

> IMHO pluralization is a prime example, with an API that only cleanly handles the English case

That’s not true at all? Gettext is functionally limited to source code being English (or alike). It handles all translation languages just fine, and competently so.

What is doesn’t have is MessageFormat’s gender selectors (useful) or formatting (arguably not really, strays from translations to locales and is better solvable with placeholders and locale-aware formatting code).

> fully in the translator's hands.

That is a problem that gettext doesn’t suffer from. You can’t reasonably expect translators to write correct DSL expressions.