While it's true every issue has its own dimension, even if those dimensions are linearly independent, they're not necessarily orthogonal. Independent basis vectors can still have a non-zero dot product—in other words, issues which are distinct from each other can align to some degree.

Oh, along those lines, it's well reported that Hyundai used systemd in recent models of their Tuscon braking system, Samsung used systemd in the Galaxy Note 7, that Toyota used systemd in their 2009-2011 accelerator systems. In addition, GM is rumored to be using system in their recent models of Cadillac, Chevy, and GMC; especially in the braking system.

Systemd makes an explosion everywhere it is used. It keeps the old rust off the tires.

Because it is a tool aimed at distro builders. It does the things they want. That doesn't mean it's good design, and it doesn't follow the Unix way.

Lennart Poettering kissed distro builder's asses until they included his tool. Once he got it in, he did whatever he wanted.

Literally every monolith ever is a collection of smaller parts.

Your example proves you don't understand monoliths. For example, it is perfectly possible to use Google Maps without using Google search, even though they are both part of the same monolith. "using" and "not using" aren't what determine a monolith. What determines a monolith is improper separation of concerns, and that is a design mistake made by systemd.

Systemd is a monolith.

It is illogical to try to fit everything into a single-dimensional left/right framework.

Literally every issue has its own dimension, and probably more than one dimension.

You can copyright the prompt.

That's why...if you are thinking of sending me an AI email, please just send me the prompt. It's protected.

You'd have to either discipline or expel cheaters. You can't discipline cheaters because then their mommy and daddy will stop giving money to the endowment. You can't expel cheaters because the school will lose the tuition revenue on top of that.

There is no financial justification whatsoever for solving the cheating problem.

This anti-AI bullshit has got to stop. If an AI finds a real bug in your program, sing hallelujah and move on with life. Computers will always be able to execute algorithms faster than humans, and with greater depth and accuracy. That's the whole point of their existence - to do stuff that is too complex for humans to do, and to do it quickly.

If it's not clear, the data reordering spreads block errors across many blocks, so long runs of errors turn into multiple individual bit errors that are handled efficiently by the code. The Golay part of the concatenated code mops up these. The RS part deals with larger blocks.

Bolsonaro: "We cheated fair and square and didn't win, so we're going to sue."

It's the same playbook Trump is going to use to try to overturn the midterm results because "we couldn't possibly have lost because we rigged the election with gerrymandered election maps!"

You'll see. Just wait.

RS is well suited to this problem space. The overhead is a fixed percentage of the filespace. Error detection is computationally simple. Error correction uses more compute but it's only invoken when there is an error.

If you want reliable storage, using forward error correction is an entirely sensible thing to do. I have my own file level FEC using A concatenated Golay & RS with data reordering that I use on stuff I don't want to fall to bit rot. It's neither complicated nor computationally prohibitive.

Ok, you have a hypothesis, that the AI made your code faster.

Did you collect any evidence to back this up? Or did you approach it from a 'faith' perspective?

I didn't understand the summary.

This is the example that helped me understand what they built. It's a framework for benchmarking different configurations. If you want to know whether Claude or ChatGPT works better, this will help you. IF you want to know if adding a skill is worth it, then this will help you determine and keep track.

Then it will put it into a pretty graph that will make CEOs think you've done something useful.

That quote is fairly benign.

Since it bothered you so much, I can only assume that you inflict breaking changes on end-users merely because you are lazy, without consideration for the problems it will cause them.

"Breaking changes are an act of violence." Douglas Crockford.