Readit NewsAlmost everyone does this. Hardly anyone taking pictures understands what f-stop or focal length are. Even those who do seldom adjust them.
There dozens of other examples where people voluntarily move to a black box approach. How many Americans drive a car with a manual transmission?
What? My team wouldn't have any downtime even if we had 10x the amount of people.
If you work at a company where you have times where you don't have work to do, you should polish your resume because it means the company will go under.
The advice I got when scouring the internets was primarily to close everything except the file you’re editing and maybe one reference file (before asking Claude anything). For added effect add something like 'Only use the currently open file. Do not read or reference any other files' to the prompt.
I don't have any hard facts to back this up, but I'm sure going to try it myself tomorrow (when my weekly cap is lifted ...).
Specifically, `spawn_enemy` here: https://github.com/clockworklabs/BitCraftPublic/blob/master/...
It makes many db calls interspersed throughout synchronous code inside the application. Normally I would assume this is super slow and has many round trips (unless it's transparently committed to memory and batched to db later). I also don't see anything about connection pool management eg acquire and release.
Does this code work efficiently because it essentially gets compiled into a type of pseudo "stored procedure" that runs all the application code on the db and as such avoids those problems?
If yes, is that a scalability issue to have so much going on in a heavy infrastructure unit such as a db?
If no, then is there a perf issue here based on my initial assumption?
Most of my feedback that can be automated is done either by this or by fuzzing. Would love to hear about other optimisations y'all have found.
It's trivially easy to get claude to scrape that and regurgitate it under any requested licence (some variable names changes, but exactly the same structure - though it got one of the lookup tables wrong, which is one of the few things you could argue aren't copyrighted there).
It'll even cheerfully tell you it's fetching the repository while "thinking". And it's clearly already in the training data - you can get it to detail specifics even disallowing that.
If I referenced copywritten code we didn't have the license for (as is the case for copyleft licenses if you don't follow the restrictions) while employed as a software engineer I'd be fired pretty quick from any corporation. And rightfully so.
People seem to have a strange idea with AI that "copyleft" code is free game to unilaterally re-license. Try doing that with leaked Microsoft code - you're breaking copyright just as much there, but a lot of people seem to perceive it very differently - and not just because of risk of enforcement but in moralizing about it too.
Source: find literally anything on GitHub using dependencies that are MIT licensed and being distributed without following the terms that state you must also redistribute the licence for each
From your link. The actual issue that people ought to be discussing in this comment section imo.
Why do we advocate destroying information/data about the dev process when in reality we need to solve a UI/display issue?
The amount of times in the last 15ish years I've solved something by looking back at the history and piecing together what happened (eg. refactor from A to B as part of a PR, then tweak B to eventually become C before getting it merged, but where there are important details that only resulted because of B, and you don't realize they are important until 2 years later) is high enough that I consider it very poor practice to remove the intermediate commits that actually track the software development process.
They released software with a requirement to use it (license, attribution) and it's been immensely helpful to people, yet these tools come and use it without even following the simple requirements. Yes they care about this thing more than others, but I don't think that it's poorly thought out.
Let's say you have a newborn so you can't easily answer the door for Halloween. So you put out a bowl of candy with a sign that says "take 2 per person, please". Every year the kids come by and take 2. They are happy, you are happy, you gave them candy and they accepted it under the conditions you desire to share it under. Then one year let's say someone makes a robot that scurries from door to door picking up the entire bowl and dumping it into a container then leaving. You will be pissed. If it just took 2 you probably won't even care, but the fact it takes the whole thing is a violation of the conditions you agreed to put the candy out under. The reasonable thing to do would be for it to either take 2 or none, but it doesn't care. I don't think this is a puzzle to understand why that violation of the agreement of use would make someone mad.
Thing is, I am still waiting to see where it increases productivity aside from some extremely small niches like speech to text and summarizing some small text very fast.