The point of a sarcastic comment like mine, is to shame reuters for their shitty behavior, that has fallen behind the times.

As the other commenter has demonstrated, finding the study is easy. For everyone, including reuters. The reason they don’t link them is cultural, they are so arrogant to believe they don’t have to. Which pisses me off and sarcasm and ridiculing them is the only tool available to me to maybe make them stop eventually.

No source linked, so that’s just a rumor spread by reuters.

Say what you want, TED taught me to tie my shoes correctly. Because if you align the knots wrong it doesn’t stay tied.

“If you got a ton of money, maybe you can make it happen,” he told Aviation Week. “They went to the Moon, you know.”

That is SO funny.

data “center”

• very far away, not central at all
• tiny, so it can’t “center” much
• radio contact only, so other places are probably faster to reach

Ok then.

designed to show off explosions.

EXPLOSIONS??

Ask your local political party (or union) and volunteer for tech stuff for them.

Ask what they use, contribute to that. Or if they use something bad, suggest something good to them, then work on that.

Open Source and git mean this is basically a non issue. It’s just effort to manage it again.

People can fork a pre… 2020? version if they insist and if it’s enough people who want that, they can group up again and form a new community.

The problem AI slop coding is mostly the untested bullshit that causes problems. That’s not going to happen because I believe that a good bunch of stuff is thoroughly tested now, and also, this is maintainers doing it. If it doesn’t work, it’s their project, their career and their success on the line. And again, the worst possible outcome is that people have to roll back to an older version.

The code we use is not art the same way that gen-ai replaces “real artists”. I agree with opposing that tech in that area, and I agree with rejecting unchecked, untested, hallucinated nonsense in coding too, especially when it promises new features in corpo software that you are forced to use, and then have that fail on you.

But there will be a very normal selection process happening. If the process doesn’t work, the software will fail and lose users.

I fully support the people who absolutely reject it though, that means diversity of approaches and that’s good.

It is so funny to me that the Saudis would invest into a creative industry that thrives on letting artists make what they think is right and then forbid them from doing that. And also expect that industry to then operate profitably, even though they just removed the basic foundation of that industry.

But there is no talking and arguing with people like that, so we can just get popcorn, watch and enjoy the Schadenfreude.

Torvalds was careful to frame this as a correction of language rather than a rejection of the technology itself.

Ok…

A maintainer burden few are talking about

Alongside the productivity gains, Torvalds described a less-discussed cost: a rising flood of low-effort, AI-generated bug and vulnerability reports hitting open source projects, including the kernel’s own security channels. He said it has become common for someone to run an AI tool against a codebase, file a report flagging a “possible” issue, and then vanish when a maintainer follows up asking for more detail or a fix.

Everyone is talking about that and it is surprising to me that he doesn’t recognize that as two side of the same coin. Why are you rejecting the low-effort, Ai generated bug reports, Linus, isn’t AI just a productivity tool? What’s wrong? Is it not being productive?

I say “surprising”, it’s not that surprising. It’s a “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” attitude. It’s willfully excluding the impact that technology has on people, and framing the outcome as coming purely from people and the existence of the technology not affecting the outcome.

The only reason to use blender and why blender has one, is CG animation work. It would be silly to have the interface where you do exactly the same thing as in a video editor, except with the timing of animations instead of footage, but not have one for footage as well. Especially if the animation sometimes depends on when which part of the footage plays.

Rendering, exporting, importing, finding a detail is wrong, is more annoying than having it right there in the same UI.

Remember that story about the chalk mark engineer with Ford? Chalk mark 1$, knowing where to mark 1000$ ? Same with code. “Code” is easy. Knowing what to write, why and where, that’s the hard part. LLMs have somehow managed to automate the code part, without the abstraction, at least in an error proof way. I don’t think “coding isn’t that hard” is insulting, and I don’t use C++ because I think it’s hard. But it’s not because writing something is hard, it’s because writing precisely what is needed is hard.

Anyway, this debate doesn’t matter, negotiate better, be active politically to ban stuff or not, complaining on the internet won’t do anyone any good. I know you’re emotionally invested in this, just… breathe and do something else? Idk. Also I’m not your enemy on this, so no need to attack me.