So I don't think it's going to be executed at the absolute peak. But it does imply that the finance people in ASML believe that the stock is undervalued even if the market as a whole is at all time highs.
Human comments tend to be short and sweet like "nit: rename creatorOfWidgets to widgetFactory". Whereas AI code review comments are long winded not as precise. So even if there are 20 humans comments, I can easily see which are important and which aren't.
We are using BitBucket at work and decided to turn on RovoDev as reviewer. It absolutely doesn’t do that. Few but relevant comments are the norm and when we don’t like something it says we tell it in its instructions file to stop doing that. It has been working great!
My coworker is so far on this spectrum it's a problem. He writes sentences with half the words missing making it actually difficult to understand what he is trying to suggest.
All of the non critical words in english aren't useless bloat, they remove ambiguity and act as a kind of error correction if something is wrong.
Yes, but I don't know how effective it is. 99% of the time someone leaves a 'nit' the other person fixes it. So we're still dealing with most of them like regular comments. Only once or twice I've been like "nah, I like my way better" but I can only do that if they also leave an LGTM. Sometimes they do. There's one or two people that will hold your code hostage until you reply to every little nit. At that point they don't feel like nits. I always LGTM if the code is functionally correct or if the build breaks in a trivial way (that would also block them from submitting). Then they can address my nits or submit anyway and I'm cool with that.
I wonder if there's a psychological benefit though. If someone states up front that they know something is just a nitpick, the author might be less likely to push back, and therefore it's less likely to end up in a bike shedding back-and-forth.
This and when an author wants to ignore it, they do. You don't need to justify your choice since the person is openly saying "I'm bikeshedding" to you.
> There's one or two people that will hold your code hostage until you reply to every little nit. At that point they don't feel like nits.
If the comment must be addressed before the review is approved, then it is not a nit, it is a blocker (a "changes required"). Blockers should not be marked as nits — nor vice versa.
I agree that prefixing comments with "Nit:" (or vice versa in extreme cases "This is a big one:") is psychologically useful. Yet another reason it's useful is that it's not uncommon for perceived importance to vary over time: you start with "hmm, this could be named blah" and a week later you've convinced yourself it's a blocker — so, force yourself to recognize that it was originally phrased as a nit, and force yourself to come back and say explicitly "I've changed my mind: I think this is important." With or without the "nit/blocker" prefixing pattern, the reviewer may come off as capricious; but with the pattern, he's at least measurably capricious.
It may feels to many. I mostly use suggestion, thought, and todo. When I type down "nit..." I realized it usually does not worth it. I'd rather make comment about higher level of the changes.
On top of being false, that's kind of a non-statement. You probably don't see average people around you protesting because if the average person was engaging in this then that'd imply close to half the country protesting. But they're definitely out there even if a small minority.
The average person doesn't have the time to protest (because how do you protest when you need to go to a job to put food on the table and keep health insurance). Or they're doing fine with the current state of affairs even if they don't like what's happening. Protesting is naturally always going to be a fringe thing and you better hope for everyone's sake that it stays that way or else you end up with a coup or revolution like in less developed nations.
Well at least be honest that these things are organized professionally and funded with tens of millions of dollars. When major news sources easily refute statements like “the right believes it’s all funded and fake” and then literally they are funded it’s not a small step to believing it’s fake
who cares if there are professional organizers? the accusations of fake/paid protests are about the crowds and participants, not the people that paid to print the posters and get some permits.
both sides have paid activists because it's a full time job. but those paid activists aren't the crowd.
> Well at least be honest that these things are organized professionally and funded with tens of millions of dollars
source? best I see from the linked fox news article is less than $8M. Note, we have customers sending marketing email and sms spending more than this and they are not getting the same attention No Kings did.
> though Soros' foundations have awarded grants to Indivisible every year since the organization's conception in 2017. In total, the Open Society Foundations have awarded $7.61 million in grants to the group behind the "No Kings" protest [1]
Of course there are people who are professional activists. I'm well aware that at a large protest with a stage and sound equipment it had tp be organized and paid for. I've done that sort of work myself.
I was specifically referring to the idea of 'paid protestors'. The extremely online right (which includes many people in the administration) sees a crowd of 10 or 20 or 50,000 people and immediately starts dismissing them all as 'paid protesters', denying the possibility that those thousands of people might have given up their free time to come together and express a political opinion. I think you understand the difference very well.
As someone who really hates what this unlawful administration is doing, I went to my local progressive club meeting for the first time expecting at least a fraction of what MAGA folks fantasize about - elite schemers developing an actual strategy to fight back.
Instead what I found were a bunch of kind mostly elderly people sharing news that I had read online a week before, and some folks gathering signatures for positions running for office.
You are doing a huge disservice to yourself by staying indoors and making assumptions about stuff that you aren't investigating in person.
When people say the protests are organized and operated by paid groups backed by the richest Democrats in the country, it’s 100% true. I pointed out how it’s false to deny it. It’s inconvenient to mention but it’s no use lying about, trivial to fact check the validity
No you didn't. Here's what I wrote originally: One current example of messaging can be seen in the reflexive dismissal by the current US government and its propagandists of any popular opposition as 'paid protesters'.
You went and beat up on a straw man that no professional organizing or funding takes place at all, a claim nobody made.
This is great for Skip users, but I'm curious how they plan on monetizing for long term sustainability. Donations are notoriously not sustainable and if they weren't able to get enough in license fees before, I don't see how they will get more donations in the future. Unless the plan is that by increasing the user base, the product will get significantly better so that even if there's a smaller percentage of donators, they will end up contributing more in total.
Probably the usual models of offering support, training, and commercial add-ons.
Independent UI frameworks like this don't stand a chance in closed source form if the main competition is all free and OSS, widely used, and high quality.
Interestingly, they went for LGPL 3 here. Nothing wrong with that as an OSS license. But I don't think it's the best license for the job here depending on their intentions. This might actually limit the enthusiasm of people to jump on this. At least they didn't go for AGPL 3 here. That would be a show stopper for many companies. Not much better than just flat out requiring a commercial license.
However, if you want to go all in on free and open source for commercial usage by whomever, probably a permissive license provides the least amount of friction for that. Since it just explicitly allows and encourages that sort of thing rather than attempting to constrain it.
If your goal is wide adoption and supporting a diverse community of contributors that are getting paid through their day job to work on this, that's generally what works best. Most of the mainstream UI frameworks are under licenses like that and for good reasons. SwiftUI, Flutter, Compose Multiplatform, React and React Native, etc. are all licensed permissively. There's a rich ecosystem of independent component and tool developers around those frameworks using similar licenses. Lots of competition as well; this is a very competitive space.
Permissive licensing is what enables ecosystems like that to form. And whether Skip likes it or not; that kind of is the competition. That's where most of the OSS developers are. Developer communities that include developers from companies that commercially depend on the software are stronger and more resilient long term. Building such communities is hard work. Unfortunately, that usually means letting go of being in control.
Small OSS companies tend to be conflicted between their own needs (monetization, protecting their IP, VC interests, etc.) and the needs of the user and especially developer community (unencumbered usage, freedom to adapt and use, etc.). That's all understandable and easy to sympathize with. But it doesn't change the reality of users and developers voting with their feet and mainly using permissively licensed stuff. Because it's there and it works. Also, diverse communities mean that is likely to stay that way. It's a thing I look for in OSS stuff I choose to use.
Very true. On immich, I've always wanted a way to do certain operations locally like adding to an album before the photo/video is fully uploaded, but I'm not frustrated that it's not possible because if I cared enough I'd create a pull request. For features that Google Photos is/was missing, I'm not as generous.
If you're worried about someone taking away your vote by erasing your pencil marking, then you should be equally/more worried about someone spoiling your ballot by voting twice on the same ballot, thereby invalidating it. You just need to trust that the people handling your ballot won't do that.
> You just need to trust that the people handling your ballot won't do that.
Given the number of people involved in watching ballots the entire time it is happening this would require a lot of compromised people and a lot of compromised scrutineers.
We already use paper voting. If you mean go back to a time before voting machines, then I fear that would actually reduce trust because the amount of tabulation errors, data entry, and spoilt ballots would skyrocket. The only people who are increasing doubt in voting machine are the same people who are trying to disenfranchise voters and not accepting the results of past elections.
The last presidential election where doing a paper recount might have helped was in 2000 and believe it or not, the same party that's calling for abolishing voting machine today was the one who sued to avoid a paper recount then.
They did start a recount! IIRC SCOTUS, at that time already taken over by partisans, illegally ruled to force the original results on us instead of correctly ruling for all FL districts to use the same methodology when performing the tallies.
If you're this paranoid then you can't really trust any piece of software. Many "random" shell scripts that update your system config are more well vetted than 90% of the software you run on your computer daily.
You should trust software that you can verify yourself as safe, or software written by people who you trust not to abuse the power you're giving them over your device by allowing them to modify it.
Personally, I don't trust most popular software either, but its easy to see why people would be fooled into thinking that software written by a major corporation used by millions of people might be more trustworthy than a script uploaded by a random anonymous person who couldn't be held accountable if their software infested your system with malware.
I agree. But I'm just surprised that you'd be extremely wary of running a sub 100 line open source script as a one time operation that you can easily audit yourself but on the other hand are likely using a browser that no one in the world (not even the developers) has fully audited.
I thought your quote was hyperbole or an exaggerated summary of the post. Nope. It's literally taken verbatim. I can't believe someone wrote that down with a straight face... although to be honest it was probably written with AI
So I don't think it's going to be executed at the absolute peak. But it does imply that the finance people in ASML believe that the stock is undervalued even if the market as a whole is at all time highs.
reply