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?

Well written code is self-documenting, specifically because once you start putting documentation somewhere else, you start getting a divergence in truth. And I'm not talking about leaving comments in the code - that's also documentation, as anyone who has had to reconcile business processes with code can attest upon discovering that the comments and the code also don't agree with each other. (This is where I try and sell people on having detailed commit messages, and then realize that they're all going to be lost the next time someone advocates for a squash merge...)

Refactoring is how you refresh your knowledge of the code and remove any accumulated cruft. Stuff like "Oh, we meant to do that in the next release, but we've completely removed that functionality, so this stub can go too.", and "Well shit, this algorithm doesn't work the way we thought it did - and the test suite is missing the test that would tell us that it doesn't work for that last 10% of use cases.", and "Uh... this method doesn't only do that one thing anymore, time to refactor and dry things out."

The moment you start relying on "tribal knowledge" to manage your code, you're fucked. Because very soon, as you have turnover (doesn't have to be layoffs - people can get promoted up or sideways, a bunch of people get hired, some people get transferred to special projects and start forgetting the stuff they maintained), the tribal knowledge distills to one thing: "If it isn't broken, don't touch it - you'll break it."

In other words... If your codebase is in decent shape, AI code bots are not a net negative unless people are blindly approving commits. If your codebase is in shitty shape, you're probably already having issues with diverging truth (and inability to scale), and you're fucked either way.

Hmmm ... interesting.

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.

DST works by tricking people to wake up and get to their daily activities an hour earlier than they normally would. And it is sold as "giving" people an hour extra in the evening. They could do that without changing their clocks by just waking up at 5 instead of 6 and working 7-4 instead of 8-5, but most people don't want to wake up earlier. So we use DST to trick them into doing it.

Doing DST as a whole society also helps for people who don't have flexible hours for their daytime activities.

But i realized a while ago that the twice a year time change is the PRIMARY reason why DST even works. Because without the constant change, people would just adapt to the new timezone. Daily activities (like school and work) would shift to starting an hour later. Lunch would start being eaten from 1-2 instead of 12-1, as the new time would be when the sun is at its highest. Dinner would be 6-7 instead of 5-6, because that is closer to when the sun is setting. It would take several years, but eventually, society would shift its schedule to closer match the sun. And the way that DST "tricks" people into getting up an hour earlier would stop.

btw, your preference (and mine) for year standard time is the way most of the world works. Gray countries in that map do not do DST. It's really only US, Canada, Europe and a few other places. And I'll never understand DST in Alaska, which is already entirely in the wrong time zone.

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

DVRs were the starting point. The namesake for what you're talking about, tivoization, is Tivo, the DVR that existed way back when TV was still analog and being displayed on CRTs.

It's why the GPLv3 was made: to add clauses to forbid tivoization. Instead, a lot of the open source community moved in the opposite direction, moving to licenses that allowed companies even more freedom to lock up their code.

Good luck. This is not a new fight by any means. You could argue that the FSF has been fighting it for almost half a century. People by and large do not care.

DDR6 isn't any faster than DDR4. The only real difference is that DDR6 is less reliable.

I'd be amazed if this wasn't already the case. We've already been through this with Tivo, it was one of the reasons behind the creation of the GPLv3. Tivo based their DVRs on Linux, and provided downloads of the Linux code. But their DVRs used hardware DRM to ensure that only code signed by Tivo would run, making it so that even with the open source code, you couldn't run changes on the hardware.

From what I can tell, Vizio is doing the same thing, but isn't providing downloads to the kernel code they're using. It's possible that there's some proprietary hardware drivers that they don't want to release code to, but Nvidia has already show how to work around that.

I expect the end result to be like Tivo: a bunch of archives of the open source software used in the TV, but none of the code required to make it useful and no signing key necessary to allow any changes to run on the TV itself.