The infinite scroll feature is not yet implented in the UI, it’s only been added to the backend

This has nothing to do with rockstar culture and everything to do with the fact that you’re spending 10x the amount of typing complaining about an issue than it would have taken you to just go and fix it and be done with this. So either you don’t want it fixed because you prefer to complain and die on your sword, or you don’t know how to fix it.

Either way I’m done with the conversation. If there is actually an issue I expect someone else who is actually levelheaded and reasonable will identify it and submit a PR. Because that’s how you improve open source software, not by throwing tantrums and making wild assumptions about peoples agendas. Go touch grass or something.

A 2-line SQL TRIGGER removal takes about minutes to fix.

Then go fix it and open a PR

It’s amazing how you have fallen hook line and sinker into believing that the problem is difficult to solve. It’s the agenda that is the problem.

If the problem is easy to solve, then go solve it, open a PR, and come back here once you’ve done so.

If you’re going to signal that something needs to be done, and you want people to join you in supporting that belief, then actually put something forward that people can get behind. What would me getting angry alongside you actually accomplish? If there was a PR then the community could go and say “Here is a solution, here’s why we think it’s worth merging” and a discussion could actually be had.

Instead you’re just giving rhetoric about how they don’t want to solve this without any evidence, actually creating a PR and having it rejected would be all the anyone needs to see to support your opinion, so go do it.

They have people like you who will not read actual code to see that they only care about the fact that “Rust is cool programming language” and crashing code doesn’t get any priority.

I’ve have merged PR’s in the Lemmy repos. Don’t assume you know anything about me or my position, because you don’t. I don’t have any particular stance on Rust and if this is actually an issue it’s one I’d like to see resolved, so go open a PR and get the conversation started instead of whinging here.

They even started a new front-end Rust application this month, because they don’t care to bother with the core of the site

Are you referring to this repo that Dessalines forked and hasn’t made a single commit against? That hardly seems like they’re abandoning the current frontend and more like a dev messing around with various tech as we all do.

PostgreSQL doing INSERT and SELECT statements to load comments.

If you know what’s wrong, and you know how to fix it, then either put up or shut up. Go make a PR and fix the problem and show us that they rejected the PR because they’re not interested in improving performance. There’s folks like Phiresky actually making meaningful contributions to the backend to help improve Postgre performance, something both dessalines and nutomic have said they’re not well experts in. Be like Phiresky, actually put your code where your mouth is.

Lastly, I don’t know if you were aware of this, but the Lemmy devs don’t owe you anything. Even less so if you’re not actually contributing code or money to help move this project forward.

You’re spamming this all over this thread. Why don’t you go create a PR instead? If you think you have a better solution then go discuss it with the people who have the full context and try to get it fixed instead of complaining here.

This is where ChatGPT and Codium.ai has been a godsend for me. Something that would have taken me a few hours to 1+ days to iterate on is now reduced down to anywhere from minutes to an hour. I don’t even always see it all the way through to completion, but just knowing that I can iterate on some version of it so quickly is often motivation enough to get started.

If you’re paying for the Plus subscription, GPT-4 with Code Interpreter is absolutely OP. Did you know you can hand it a zip file as a way of giving it multiple files at once?

But now you have the opportunity to build it in Rust or Typescript! /s

I was interviewed with complex logic problems and a rigorous testing of my domain knowledge.

Most of what I do is updating copy and images.

I’ve never been to college and my job title today is Software Architect, I’ve been doing this for nearly 20 years.

It was extremely hard at first to get a job because everyone wanted a BA, but that was also 20 years ago. Once I had some experience and could clearly demonstrate my capabilities they were more open to hiring me. The thing a degree shows is that you have some level of experience and commitment, but the reality is a BA in CompSci doesn’t actually prepare you for the reality of 99% of software development.

I think most companies these days have come to realize this. Unless you’re trying to apply to one of the FANG corps (or whatever the acronym is now) you’ll be just fine if you have a decent portfolio and can demonstrate an understanding of the fundamentals.

The problem is a lot of people who want to learn to code, and are conditioned to desire the college route of education, don’t actually know that there is a difference and that you can be completely self-taught in the field without ever stepping foot in a university.

My understanding is that the copyright applies to reproductions of the work, which this is not. If I provide a summary of a copyrighted summary of a copyrighted work, am I in violation of either copyright because I created a new derivative summary?

Quoting this comment from the HN thread:

On information and belief, the reason ChatGPT can accurately summarize a certain copyrighted book is because that book was copied by OpenAI and ingested by the underlying OpenAI Language Model (either GPT-3.5 or GPT-4) as part of its training data.

While it strikes me as perfectly plausible that the Books2 dataset contains Silverman’s book, this quote from the complaint seems obviously false.

First, even if the model never saw a single word of the book’s text during training, it could still learn to summarize it from reading other summaries which are publicly available. Such as the book’s Wikipedia page.

Second, it’s not even clear to me that a model which only saw the text of a book, but not any descriptions or summaries of it, during training would even be particular good at producing a summary.

We can test this by asking for a summary of a book which is available through Project Gutenberg (which the complaint asserts is Books1 and therefore part of ChatGPT’s training data) but for which there is little discussion online. If the source of the ability to summarize is having the book itself during training, the model should be equally able to summarize the rare book as it is Silverman’s book.

I chose “The Ruby of Kishmoor” at random. It was added to PG in 2003. ChatGPT with GPT-3.5 hallucinates a summary that doesn’t even identify the correct main characters. The GPT-4 model refuses to even try, saying it doesn’t know anything about the story and it isn’t part of its training data.

If ChatGPT’s ability to summarize Silverman’s book comes from the book itself being part of the training data, why can it not do the same for other books?

As the commentor points out, I could recreate this result using a smaller offline model and an excerpt from the Wikipedia page for the book.

This was not the first and it won’t be the last. They’ve had issues going as far back as 2015. Don’t keep your credentials with a paid platform. Use something you can fully audit and control yourself like Bitwarden or KeePass

I don’t know that 1password should be on that list. The first two are free and open source. The last one is paid and proprietary.

Don’t put your credentials in the hand of a company that requires you to trust them to not fuck up. Everyone thought LastPass was great until they weren’t

If you’re using a password manager you’d be doing this for every site and without even having to think about it. Bitwarden is a great choice.

To me there’s a bunch of red flags, but I can’t put my finger on what I reckon they’re flagging.

Let’s start with the fact that the only way to participate currently is to make a “donation” for which you then receive a passphrase which will allegedly give you access once this thing releases. That release presumably depends on them receiving enough of these “donations”. They then instruct you to go hype this to your social network, no doubt with the goal of convincing them to donate.

Then once you move past that there’s the fact that they’re claiming this platform operates on a “custom blockchain”. If I’m to take that at face value it means they’re spinning up their own chain for which there will be an incredibly limited number of nodes. Even if you have users running their own nodes this is going to result in centralization out of the gate and would only be anywhere near decentralized if enough active users of the network (which isn’t out yet) decide to turn into network operators. In other blockchains this is done using economic incentives because running these types of networks is neither financially or technically trivial. This no doubt means there would eventually be a Panquake token. 🥞🚀🌙!!

We’ve seen this model before and if the network gains any traction it results in a handful of supernodes controlled either by the central entity or a cabal of entities associated with them.

They could have saved themselves a ton of time and engineering hours by docking themselves to Ethereum either as a rollup or even by using existing Layer 2 networks. Then they would have inherited the decentralization and security guarantees that network provides and additionally opened the opportunity to market to the participants of that network.

Then setting all of that aside there is the more obvious question of why a social network needs to be built on a blockchain. What part of an append-only ledger of immutable records aligns with the operational requirements of a social network? The only overlap between the needs of the two is decentralization, but ActivityPub already exists.

Every single part of this looks like people trying to create monetization from a solution that doesn’t solve the problem it claims to address, while going about all of it in the worse way possible. And all of that assumes this will ever see the light of day rather than just running off into the sunset with those “donations”, which conveniently creates a form of legal protection since you gave that money under the pretense of supporting an effort without a clearly defined expectation of a deliverable.

TLDR: Avoid

The questions are intended to get you to stop, read the rules, consider if you want to be there, and to be earnest about it. Nobody said it was a mechanism to prevent bots. Just because it’s not 100% secure against fraud and botting doesn’t mean it’s useless either.

I thought the only logical conclusion for gatekeeping with those questions was the donations.

I fail to see the logic in that connection. The first fact does not in any way directly lead to the other. They want to curate a specific type of community and they have a very limited set of tools at their disposal. The fact that those tools are not foolproof doesn’t mean they’re part of some rouse to ask you for money.

It’s just so illogical to think those questions are any kind of real ethical filter.

You’re clearly missing the point of what Beehaw is going for, which may have been a contributing factor to your rejected application. You could always try again with a different identity, or since it seems you may not be what they’re looking for you could just move on and enjoy your time in the fediverse from your sh.itjust.works account.

What in this message made you think your rejection had anything to do with donations? Seems like you’re jumping to that conclusion without any evidence.

Instead of leaving it to the useer, it’s as if you want to change it to "follow the list of this mainstream person/newspape’.

The instance admins are free to express themselves just as much as any other group of people. If you don’t like the outcome of their decision then you’re also free to go and create an instance or move instances.

If a majority of their users decide they don’t like the actions the administration of that instance are taking they can always move instances to one that more closely aligns with their viewpoints. If they choose to stay then clearly they agree and are very likely part of the group you clearly don’t want to be associating with.

Nobody is entitled to the service that instance admins offer, and users are free to move as they see fit. Reddit made a unilateral decision we didn’t like and now we’re all here, why is a Lemmy instance any different?

The dude has a pretty damning public record of being intolerant towards women and minorities, it’s not like it’s hard to find this stuff. Let’s not pretend like a few bad actors being in the mix suddenly make this guy a patron saint. And even if you want to ignore him directly, it’s hard to ignore the type of crowd that he gathers. Birds of a shit-feather flock together.