Readit NewsDeleted Comment
keep up the good work!
at least I think it would be possible to do "switch to another full terminal window, no splits, no status bar" without being a terminal emulator, I haven't tried.
fwiw while they do produce Docker containers for it, it's also extremely simple to run without that - it's a single binary and running it with systemd is unsurprisingly simple[1].
0: https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/
1: https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/cookbook/system...
They're both wrong, just in different ways, and observing this is not "bothsidesism."
there's lots of stupid brigading on HN, but sometimes dumb comments get the downvotes they deserve.
if you like it, it's only $10/month, which I regrettably spend on coffee some days.
this[0] article by the BBC covers the details of that fine. here's the meat of it, for the extremely lazy:
> In his speech in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Trump said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
> However, in Panorama's edit, he was shown saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
> The two sections of the speech that were edited together were more than 50 minutes apart.
> The "fight like hell" comment was taken from a section where President Trump discussed how "corrupt" US elections were. In total, he used the words "fight" or "fighting" 20 times in the speech.
> After showing the president speaking, the programme played footage of flag-waving men marching on the Capitol, the Telegraph said.
> According to the leaked memo, this "created the impression President Trump's supporters had taken up his 'call to arms'". But that footage was in fact shot before the president had started speaking.
it is worth considering the bar that is being demanded here, and how every single other news source in the world would compare against that bar.
the reason this is in the news now is that someone "leaked" an internal memo from the BBC that discussed the show. the claim is that it was fundamentally unfair to suggest that trump was encouraging these people. since that day he has:
- explicitly claimed he supported them and what they did [1]
- given federal pardons to ~all of them, including ones who had commited previous crimes and then after being pardoned committed further crimes [2]
0: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo
1: https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-evolution-downplay-vi...
To extend that: If the LLM is the author and the responsible engineer is the genuine first reviewer, do you need a second engineer at all?
Typically in my experience one review is enough.
anyone who is doing serious enough engineering that they have the rule of "one human writes, one human reviews" wants two humans to actually put careful thought in to a thing, and only one of them is deeply incentivised to just commit the code.
your suggestion means less review and worse incentives.