Sam

It was only briefly mentioned in the article, but one of the biggest problems with GitHub (et al) in my mind is their effect on the contribution process. Git was designed for email. It was designed around every developer having their own local copy of the repo, and being able to hack as needed before packaging a patch up and sending it to a mailing list. There are features which can be used to coordinate an official source for the project, but they can equally be turned toward connecting directly with the other devs. It was not built around making an account, forking the project,¹ and feeding everything to a single upstream as a monolithic pull request. Even before looking at the effect of laundering every open source project through a single company, the very model underpinning it inherently diminishes developers in favor of organizations. re: @ploum@mamot.fr ¹ Which is a terrible abuse of a long-standing term. This is basic distributed development, not splitting the community.

I really wish qutebrowser was using Gecko or Servo rather than Blink/WebEngine (even the alternative WebKit backend is effectively deprecated), but not even Tridactl can compete with a browser designed from the ground up for the keyboard. Still, if I'm ever doing something that requires me to pull up a different browser, it's definitely LibreWolf (or very rarely Tor Browser). I'm just hoping that the upstream management doesn't put too much pressure on the forks -- and even if it does, I'm right with you on it still being better than Google. re: @Doomed_Daniel@mastodon.gamedev.place

This so much! There are certainly things I need to get notified about. Do I have to be notified about it right then? (In the case of "drink some water so you don't dehydrate yourself", unfortunately, yes, I do. In the case of "this person liked your post", what am I going to do about that in the next fifteen seconds that I couldn't do in several hours?) Even if I do need the immediacy, will I ever have any reason to go back to it after seeing and dismissing it? I guess that's what happens when one of our primary computer providers is an ad business. Who's up for overthrowing Google? 🙃 RE: @RL_Dane@fosstodon.org CC: @sean@social.massalabs.com @praxeology@post.lurk.org

I was just thinking about putting together some "please boost my stuff" messaging for my own single-user instance. 😉 re: @gintoxicating@transister.social

Tab groups are odd, but I can see how they fit into some peoples' flows. Meanwhile, Chrome (which I only use under protest at work) just told me with its most recent update that I can now put "multiple pages side-by-side in the same tab". You know, for that classic multi-window feel without ever having to get your operating system involved. The mind of a lead browser dev must be a wild place. re: @mcc@mastodon.social cc: @fasterandworse@hci.social

That wasn't what this study was. It was specifically looking at how AI affects learning a new library/tooling. And, yeah, it's not surprising that using AI to blindly generate code winds up not translating into similar skills for writing the code manually. (Also, the comprehension scores were significantly divided between different ways people used the assistant, so this is another study saying that not all AI use is equivalent.) Note that we require students how to do math longhand as well before allowing them to bring successively more complex calculators into the classroom. We don't say calculators are unconditionally bad because too heavy a reliance on them hinders learning. Computer science courses are far from being made obsolete through AI. The fact that debugging skills suffered the most from relying on the AI suggests that a solid foundation might even be more important as these tools become a standard part of the toolkit. But that's all that can be gleaned from this study -- trying to say anything based on these results about programmers who are already experienced with the language and libraries being used, is entirely misrepresenting the findings. re: @Loosf@yiff.life