The response you link to was published on September 30, 2025, so it's not the response to gem.coop? I'd say gem.coop is the response to Ruby Central's actions?
If it weren't effective, large businesses and interest ("lobby") groups wouldn't spend millions on trying to establish certain words.
Calling it "sideloading" instead of "installing" software successfully cements the notion that it is somehow not a completely normal thing to do. That's problem solved for the Googles and Apples of the world.
True, but on the other hand the meaning of words often follows usage rather than the other way around.
There is no choice of words that will make it normal to install mobile apps from anywhere other than an app store. Whatever word we use will take on the meaning of doing something unusual.
"Sideloading" doesn't have an inherent or deeply ingrained negative connotation. I don't see a reason to try to change it.
You are looking at LLMs for code generation exclusively, but that is not the only application within software engineering.
In my company some people are using LLMs to generate some of their code, but more are using them to get a first code review, before requesting a review by their colleagues.
This helps getting the easy/nitpicky stuff out of the way and thereby often saves us one feedback+fix cycle.
Examples would be "you changed this unit test, but didn't update the unit test name", "you changed this function but not the doc string", or "if you reorder these if statements you can avoid deep nesting".
Nothing groundbreaking, but nice things.
We still review like we did before, but can often focus a little more on the "what" instead of the "how".
In this application, the LLM is kind of like a linter with fuzzy rules. We didn't stop reviewing code just because many languages come with standard formatters nowadays, either.
While the whole code generation aspect of AI is all the rage right now (and to quote the article):
> Focus on tangible changes in areas that you care about that really do seem connected to AI
So while I don't disagree with you at all, in terms of AI being a bubble, none of that is why the tech is being so hyped up. The current speculative hype push is being driven by two factors:
1. The promise that AI will replace most if not all developers
2. Alternatively, that AI will turn every developer into a 10-100x developer
My personal opinion is that it'll end up being one of many tools that's situationally useful, eg you're 100% right in that having it as an additional code review step is a great idea. But the amount of money being pumped into the industry isn't enough to sustain mild use cases like that and that isn't why the tech is being pushed. The trillions of dollars being dumped into improving clang tidy isn't sustainable if that's the end use case
If you don't break hard enough, it might still be the recuperation doing its work.
Car producers can and do resolve this, e.g. iirc Audis don't use recuperation for the first breaking of the day. That way you don't have to remember to use the no-recuperation/break cleaning mode or break unnecessarily hard every now and then.
The manual recommends putting the car in neutral and then braking every once in a while to keep the brakes in good working order. Putting the car in neutral disables the recuperation and makes sure you really use the friction brakes.
(When I say "the manual", I mean both the manual of my previous car which was a hybrid Toyota Auris, and my current car which is a fully electric Volvo XC40.)
We are talking about national gold reserves, not some household items.
They exist for the reason to liquidate them in case of national emergencies/severe economic crises.
It's easier to liquidate these reserves when they are stored in trading hubs. That could be New York and London, or maybe even Shanghai, if China wasn't a systemic rival.
Storing all of them at "one's place" is a larger risk than splitting it up and storing them in several places, each with a different risk profile.
Well, if WWIII starts they will not be cashing in their gold no matter where it is kept and world financial capitals would be the last places to survive strikes.
Heh, given the title I initially thought SentinelOne was addressing the Chris Krebs situation, and the adversary would be the current administration.
But it's about different nation state actors.
In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the U.S., or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Under U.S. Code Title 18, the penalty is death, or not less than five years' imprisonment (with a minimum fine of $10,000, if not sentenced to death). Any person convicted of treason against the United States also forfeits the right to hold public office in the United States.
The constitution sets a really high bar on Treason. “It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
“No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Cramer v United States being an interesting example. ‘As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” In other words, the Constitution requires both concrete action and an intent to betray the nation before a citizen can be convicted of treason; expressing traitorous thoughts or intentions alone does not suffice.’
Those are great words both of you. A lot of good was done with those words and the others that come before and after them. Its too bad they don't matter anymore… I wish they did.
Unfortunately the current DPRUS administration doesn't seem to care what the constitution says. They happily ran over the due process requirements set in the 5th amendment and openly ignored a court ordering something to be done to rectify that.
For the time being at least, any protection “guaranteed” by the constitution can not be relied upon if it goes against the wishes of a certain few.
Wow, so if you don't fall in line with the demagoguery, you'll be thrown out, probably to be replaced with someone who does, or it'll be rinse and repeat until that happens.
They answered your question "are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?"
In this sentence, you are looking at different parts of the equation depending on case 1 and 2:
> Apparently men ought not to get a say in "women's issues", but it is also right that men be forced to put their lives on the line.
No, in the first case it could be argued that men shouldn't have a say, and in the second it could be argued that women shouldn't have a say. In the first case women are (potentially/allegedly) negative affected, in the second (young) men.
> Can you think of a female equivalent where females are ordered by the government to put themselves in harm's way?
Anti-Abortion laws in the US would be such an example.
But just now I read that a (sharply reduced) budget had passed the house? [2] does anyone know what the current state is?
[0]: https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/6/csb_cj_2026.pdf
[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/only-federal-agency-that-i...
[2]: https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/27090-house...