It depends.

If you can do a static website, don’t need user content management, do it. You evade all kinds of trouble and technical complexity.

warning letter? throw them out right away

A bit too broad to give a specific answer from my side.

Overall, I prefer web based over apps, because I can CSS hack and if necessary JS hack them.

Web also means it doesn’t litter my PC or mobile phone or tablet. And that it can’t fetch more data than it needs or I want it to have access to.

Bad software is bad software, no matter if it’s installed or on the web.

The git compatibility is necessary for adoption and connected use.

jj does significantly reduce the work interface, but the git compatibility increases complexity again.

I tried it out a little bit a few days ago, and found it interesting. But given my git knowledge and tooling, I can’t reasonably switch. First, I would miss my TortoiseGit Log view (entrypoint to everything). But also, the connection between jj and git seems complex and potentially error prone.

As a fresh and independent tool I can definitely see how it’s much easier and better, especially for people not familiar with Git.

from some time ago

It’s a fair statement and personal experience, but a question is, does this change with tool changes and user experience? Which makes studies like OP important.

Your >95% garbage claim may very well be an isolated issue due to tech or lib or llm usage patters or whatnot. And it may change over time, with different models or tooling.

It’s not a duplicate URL. You posted an image, they posted a link to the study.

I mainly wanted to give the additional context and discussion, more so than say “has already posted”.

I assume I must have compared a modified date or sth, dunno. Misled by it being shown further down in my feed.

(minutes) earlier post linking the study

So many words…

to

oh god please no

wth is all that coloring [in the design samples]

Documentation: A place where we can create documentation for projects that don’t have the documentation or is very basic.

Why create or extend documentation outside of the project when you could improve the project docs themselves?

Projects that are open source but don’t allow easy doc contributions?

I find contributing to projects very easy. When I read some docs, and find an issue, I create a pull request with a fix. When I’m interested in a project, I take a look at open issues. Often the website and software project are separate repos with separate issues.

I find the idea of a community of people sharing ideas, open tasks, seeking and finding contributors compelling, but I’m skeptical any new platform could reach critical mass. Maybe that’d be a matter of approach and long term effort.

Stop allowing full unfettered access

There’s a decline button. At least privacy settings don’t repeatedly come up again (what this post is about).

If you lease you car you have to give it back.

If you license your games for the duration of them being active, then it makes sense.

The biggest issue, miscommunication, and often illegal practice is calling it buying when it is only a limited subscription. IIRC Steam recently (finally had to) change the wording away from “buying”. Because it’s not buying if you don’t own the product afterwards.

So still only a thing after manually installing Gemini yourself?

Better flood them with interested users than ask for thumbs up on a ticket.

What’s with the signed 2.0 vs unsigned 2.1 Windows installer?

Winget apparently already references the unsigned installer. Does it take them a while to sign? I would expect winget to reference only signed installers if they provide them.

Is this a US thing or does it apply to EU too?

Steam

• offers services
• takes a 30% cut on products sold on the Steam Store
• offers free Steam keys, within broad limitations, for you to sell on other stores, or distribute in other ways (free review copies, etc)
• requires you to sell the product at the same price even when Steam is not involved (different store, no Steam integration)
• the implication is that this also applies to discounts (I don’t know for sure myself, and the post does not give evidence of it, but the “fair to Steam” implies it)

You could sell a product DRM-free on your own website 30% cheaper, and get the same money, while providing a cheaper, DRM-free alternative. Steam currently denies that, restricting your choices. You can still sell it on your website at the same price, of course, and the customer still has a choice.

I think what feels unfair or maybe immoral is that they make demands, even requirements, upon your decisions and distributions that do not involve them at all. They’re taking your product hostage. And they can do so because they’re so big you can’t not publish on their storefront too if you want reach.

We want to move down to the next line (line feed) but also to the beginning of that line (carriage return) after all.

Unless you open it in Excel. In which case bad things will happen no matter what you have in the CSV…

When did you first hear of Godot?*

I don’t know man. Required field. No fitting option. Guess I’ll leave.

They bought Java (not javascript)

They bought Sun, which “owned” Java and JavaScript.