Also the President of Spain says (firefox translated) “We reject the unilateral military action of the U.S. and Israel, which is an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.” but then goes on to also reject Iran’s (unspecified) actions.

Like Finland’s it’s a pretty tame condemnation, but noteworthy coming from NATO member states.

The President of Finland actually went a little off script

could Red Hat eventually take control of the project

Fedora started in 2002 and merged with “Red Hat Linux” in 2003.

Red Hat, Inc has had full control of it ever since then.

It is a “community project” inasmuch as there are Fedora developers who are volunteers (and some who are paid by companies other than Red Hat), and the Fedora Council includes people who are not employed by Red Hat - but the Project Leader is always a Red Hat employee, and if the Council ever has an irreconcilable difference with Red Hat then Red Hat can simply ignore and/or dismiss them.

Red Hat owns all Fedora-related trademarks, and the Fedora Project is not an independent legal entity: it is a part of Red Hat.

If Fedora developers don’t like Red Hat’s decisions regarding the project, they can fork it but they’d need to change the name and find some other sources funding.

Also, icymi, Red Hat became a subsidiary of IBM in 2019.

im not sure how easy it is to get LLM’s to output near-verbatim

the more relevant question is how easy it is to be confident that they aren’t. (and the answer is: you can’t)

i dont want “using AI” to be used to undermine my efforts

😭

what you see is the result of the typical software development process

note that many free software projects have had to establish rules explicitly prohibiting LLM contributions precisely to avoid the issue of plagiarism, as well as the related issue of copyright infringement. (and of course, code quality is another reason to…)

you’re the first to give any pushback on it

given the fact that LLMs’ outputs can include verbatim or near-verbatim excerpts of their training data, how do you justify placing an open source license (or more generally, any copyright claim of your own) on source code you’ve “authored” using one of these automatic plagiarism machines?

I am using AI to do this so its important to be clear that im not asking you to audit or review my vibecoded project. While i have made attempts to create things like audits and formal-proof verication, i know better than to trust AI when it tells me its working correctly.

Sharing it now if there is feedback about the implementation. Anything i may be over looking? Feel free to reach out for clarity on any details.

Did you write this post using an LLM too? You say that you are “not asking you to audit or review my vibecoded project” and then in the very next paragraph request “feedback about the implementation”.

Here is my feedback: stop trying to vibe-code privacy software.

i know better than to trust AI when it tells me its working correctly

if you know better, why are you continuing to do it, and to post your outputs here?

what’s the goal?!

i went to check if this is a real tweet, and:

!selfawarewolves@lemmy.ml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_trends_among_American_conservatives

also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois has a bio that just keeps getting worse

also, Google says it helps “get that loyalty early, and potentially for life”:

maybe it would be better to say that it is stochastically accurate?

also btw icymi, this is a post about LLMs

Here is a youtube video purportedly showing one actually working; they’ve been taking pre-orders since last summer but wikipedia editors say it’s unverifiable so they remove references to it from their “Mosquito laser” article.

frequently changing one’s global git author config seems like a recipe for making mistakes. when using multiple git identities in the same environment, it’s better to use per-checkout configs so that you always use the correct one: git config --local user.name User; git config --local user.email user@example.com will write these settings to the checkout’s .git/config.

source

this post is a screenshot of https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/oh-my-god-how-i-do-hate-species-and

see also https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/i-loathe-i-abhor-the-sea-and-all

and https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/ (where you can search and read the full text of over 15,000 of Darwin’s letters)

i absotively posilutely want to see dingledangler become an in-the-swim catch-word again.

(to acknowledge the corn, i had to consult this to write this comment.)

Idk it works for me.

I don’t think there is any possible value for the sign variable which would make that if statement do anything other than raise a TypeError.

Also "8:00:00" > "10:00:00"

but "08:00:00" < "10:00:00". comparing timestamps as strings is weird but actually works, as long as the hour is zero-padded :)

the problem with this code is that & (bitwise AND) has higher operator precedence than > and == do, so it is first trying to bitwise AND "10:00:00" with sign (which i’m assuming would also be a string) and that will always raise a TypeError.

to do what the author appears to have intended to do, they would either need use parenthesis around both comparisons to actually bitwise AND their results, or (better) to use the boolean AND operator (and) instead of &.

The boolean and operator is the right tool for the job, and since it is lower precedence it also wouldn’t require that any parenthesis be added here.

don’t trust anyone over 30 0x30