That's the type of meter the VA issues to me. And, I send my readings to my Diabetes Coach about once a month and we discuss how I'm doing and adjust things if needed. I've been doing this for about 20 years, and am very well controlled.

I hope you don't watch the images being generated one line of pixels at a time from top to bottom! It's not worth it. I used to do that for, ahem, research purposes, in the old days.

My inner pedant has been awakened! I must insist you stop mixing measurement units forthwith, or there will be further comments!

A UID is measured in bits, not years. ;-)

With a name like that he may as well have an uncle named Victor!

I don't know what you mean... I thought he was going to build a spaceport on Mars???

Much better then finger sticks 20 times a day leaving the tips of your fingers covered in bruises, pin pricks or just numb.

Man, you must have some seriously major case of diabetes if you need 20 sticks per day! I take 22 units of Lantus every morning and Novolog on a sliding scale with each meal and only four sticks per day. One before each meal and one at bedtime.

Action-at-a-distance! Get your action-at-a-distance here or there! Packaged in a wave! No field of enquiry, is too small.

You, sir, do you want to read the story? Only two cents!

Extra! Extra!

I particularly loathe the AI animated historical and scientific explainers produced by AI. For example, you get a neat simple story about something interesting like the evolution of clothing in hominids, and you wonder what has scientific backing and what is hallucinated.

It's a balance. The absence of enforcement of rules is toxic in a different way. I believe that when rules are spelled out up front, anyone who deliberately flaunts them does not have the good of the community in mind. So why should they remain members of said community?

The breaking of licensing terms often takes place in private. For example, if X steals his employer's source code, slaps a fake open source license on the stolen code, and submits it to Debian, there's no way to know. Except if another employee Y happens to find the code online and notifies Debian about X's fraud.

Enforcing a lifetime ban on X's contributions is the least Debian can do in that case to protect itself legally from the wronged company.

He thinks that any policy statement that says AI isn't allowed simply won't hold up, as the tooling keeps getting harder to detect...

It shouldn't be about detecting and preventing AI contributions with 100% accuracy. Some AI contributions will get through because people will always try something.

It should be about spelling out the rules, then banishing people who break them, ripping out their "contributions" and shaming them publically if and when they are found out.

This is not any more difficult than policing licensing terms is today. Debian already has a history of banishing non-Free software packages into special source repos. And, like any serious open source project, they already rip out code that isn't legally safe for them to use (eg if someone steals code and passes it off as their own and makes up a fake license).

Eventually, the answer will be to have a standard mechanism for reporting suspicious sloppy source code and whistleblowing on the cheaters.

Why do you think that he's going to take the time to look up references for you when you never do?

What I think the OP means is that throwing randomly generated constructions at an external proof calculator, like Lean, until something gives, does not convincingly suggest that the LLM component is performing a useful task on its own.

I predict it will turn out some obscure forgotten paper from 1974 did it first.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your story as a work story with a corporate team mate submitting AI PRs. Lots of those around these days.