Yeah? So how come he never speaks and has the language comprehension of a 3-year-old?

How did you "just get" something that has yet to be released?

Please, no. Often when writing code I need the API reference and only the API reference. I know what I want to do and how to do it, I just need a quick check of the exact order of arguments or exact symbol names. I don't need to try to sift that out of commentary. Likewise when I'm learning how to use the library I'm more interested in the overall view. I don't need to know the exact names of the options for a call, only what the options are for. I expect the code in the user's guide to be accurate, but I don't want the same things out of it that I want out of the API reference.

Except for the bit where it does that caching for a loop where each lookup only occurs once. Because everybody caches lookups, so that must be the right thing to do (it's the most likely thing to happen) in a case where the cache is never used. Riiiiight...

Something critical to note: intent is the most important thing to document when it comes to software. You can see what it does by reading the code, that's straightforward. What I need to know most, both when writing software and maintaining it later, is why it's doing that. What's it supposed to be doing? Why is it doing it in that way? What were the alternatives and why weren't they chosen? How is it supposed to be used by code that calls it? An LLM can't generate any of that just from the code.

This is why traditionally software libraries have had two separate pieces of documentation: an API reference that details every call and it's arguments and results, and a user's guide that lays out how and why to use the library.

Hmmm ... interesting.

This has been typical behavior for large companies when dealing with vulnerability reports for decades. Report one, they treat you as the problem. They'll try to ignore it, consider it "not exploitable", delay and deflect as long as they can get away with it, anything but address the vulnerability. And they'll never tell anyone the vulnerability exists. This only changes when they have no choice but to admit to the problem and fix it, usually when the vulnerability is being publicly exploited. They push "responsible disclosure" because it includes the reporter not making the vulnerability public until the company has a fix, which allows them to stall disclosure as long as they want.

It used to be enough to just include a reasonable deadline when reporting it, after which the reporter would make it public if the company hadn't taken some action on it. Then companies started threatening and then taking legal action against the reporter as soon as they reported the problem, playing the deadline up as "blackmail".

So, what do you do when faced with this? The only reasonable response is to skip the company entirely and make the details public immediately. You're going to be facing retaliation from the company either way, this way the public isn't vulnerable for an extended time. And yes you include details on how to exploit the vulnerability, ideally via working code, so researchers other than the company can confirm it's a real vulnerability that's actually exploitable without having to take your word for it. No, that doesn't give the bad guys anything because remember the working assumption for vulnerabilities: if a good guy has found it, the bad guys already know about it and are using it. Remember that when the company whines.

For some people's beliefs and values, whataboutism is all they've got to offer.

Well, that and projecting.

The even shout "aieeeeee!" when some something scares them.

Yeah, I think they forgot to include "stupid" in the long list of his faults.

Minimal justice, if we want to split hairs.

Well, the last piece of that sentence is the key part. I, and most everyone I know, have no problem using English language words. It seems to me that the only reason to censor yourself with weird, invented terms is because you want to be able to monetize your content on YouTube.

Spotify, UMG To Let Fans Make Other Peoples' Music Their Own Music With AI

Oh, but these are *preventative* wars. He gets a peace prize for every country he invades!

Venezuela was using fentanyl as a WMD. Iran was about to nuke us. Cuba might attack us with drones if someone provides them. Greenland might start a snowball fight, and make us look bad if we lose.

Presumably we've got all our best people on this, since they're obviously not on the UFO videos.

One of the "unidentifiable" objects in an earlier release (last year, I think) was obviously as hell two birds flying low over the ground.

I don't have a conspiracy theory to explain it, but this is all utter bullshit.