Kingdom of Heaven, I believe

I’m not even saying that Google’s data collection is innocuous. I’m just saying that this post is incorrect in its claim that Google is letting Gemini access your apps even if you try to turn that access off. Just because Google does some nefarious things doesn’t mean you can’t think critically about actual specific actions they take.

Oh, that makes much more sense; thanks.

I think the point of the question is what a hypothetical ideal language for CI/CD pipelines would look like.

The post doesn’t say “imperative”, it just differentiates between defining pipeline steps and defining the logic within a step.

…also, TCL? I haven’t used it for ops, but my memory of tcl/tk is extremely negative.

…also also: a core part of a build, CI, or, CD pipeline is almost always invoking binaries to run a command. That’s why shell scripts are so ubiquitous in pipeline-logic: invoking binaries is what they’re for. And it’s very difficult to do that a declarative way: Make comes close, but it’s difficult to track any side-effects that aren’t “update these files”, and a huge amount of CI/CD is no longer just “update a file”.

https://askubuntu.com/q/641049

TL;DR: it’s supposed to send email to an administrator, but by default on some distros (including Ubuntu), it isn’t actually sent anywhere.

This misunderstands the announcement completely.

What the announcement is saying is: previously, if you wanted Gemini to have access to text and chat apps, you also needed to enable Gemini Apps Activity, i.e. the feature that saves all Gemini interactions to the cloud. Now, the settings to enable or disable app access from history tracking are fully separate, so you can have app access enabled (if you want) even if the Apps Activity feature is disabled.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the announcement. What the announcement is saying is: previously, if you wanted Gemini to have access to text and chat apps, you also needed to enable Gemini Apps Activity, i.e. the feature that saves all Gemini interactions to the cloud. Now, the settings to enable or disable app access from history tracking are fully separate, so you can have app access enabled (if you want) even if the Apps Activity feature is disabled.

Do you mean Dan Luu, or one of the studies reviewed in the post?

Yeah, I understand that Option and Maybe aren’t new, but they’ve only recently become popular. IIRC several of the studies use Java, which is certainly safer than C++ and is technically statically typed, but in my opinion doesn’t do much to help ensure correctness compared to Rust, Swift, Kotlin, etc.

I don’t know; I haven’t caught up on the research over the past decade. But it’s worth noting that this body of evidence is from before the surge in popularity of strongly typed languages such as Swift, Rust, and TypeScript. In particular, mainstream “statically typed” languages still had null values rather than Option or Maybe.

Note that this post is from 2014.

Partly because it’s from 2014, so the modern static typing renaissance was barely starting (TypeScript was only two years old; Rust hadn’t hit 1.0; Swift was mere months old). And partly because true evidence-based software research is very difficult (how can you possibly measure the impact of a programming language on a large-scale project without having different teams write the same project in different languages?) and it’s rarely even attempted.

Notably, this article is from 2014.

It’s valid usage if you go waaay back, i.e. centuries. You also see it in some late 19th/early 20th century newsprint and ads.

No, because the thing they are naming is “The Github Dictionary”; they’re not applying scare-quotes to the word “dictionary” implying that what they’ve written is not really a “dictionary”.

“Scare quotes” definitely precede Austin Powers, though that may have spurred a rise in popularity of the usage. (Also, “trashy people never saw Austin Powers” is honestly a pretty weird statement, IMO.)

That said, in this case, arguably the quotes are appropriate, because “the github dictionary” isn’t something that happened (i.e. a headline), but a thing they’ve made up.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Most of those comments are actually just random people arguing about the merits of the experiment, not continued discussion with the bot.

Also, the bot is supposed to be able to run builds to verify its work, but is currently prevented from doing so by a firewall rule they’re trying to fix, so its feedback is limited to what the comments provide. Humans wouldn’t do great in that scenario either. (Not to say the AI is doing “great” here, just that we’re not actually seeing the best-case scenario yet.)