It was removed from /c/technology because /c/technology isn’t for discussing, learning about, or posting about technology. It’s for posting about big tech companies, tech adjacent or non-tech news, politics, and their CEOs.

It’s the Lemmy equivalent of reddits. It’s pretty much a pile of crap.

Well “solved” is a bit of a weird way to say it. Was it proven as true, or was it disproven? Both of those change things in different ways.

Proven true that it is a stable formula, then that’s cool, and we know that issues with fluid simulations based off of that are a software and compute problem.

If it was disproven, then we learn precisely under what specific conditions nature becomes mathematically unpredictable, and then we can start developing different and better models.

Ah yes, the 7h of troubleshooting why I can’t get the easiest distro to install on my laptop only to find out it’s installer has a bug with my specific hardware and firmware that gets it all cocked up.

This is a dumb meme.

I have as much fiddling to do with a Linux install as I do with a Windows install. The difference being that windows tends to “just work”, and then I have to declaw it. While Linux tends to “sometimes work” and I then need to add stuff in.

I mean, screw performance. You can get away with a lot of shitty performance and still have a completely functional application. However, the kind of slop that happens around module boundaries that turns your codebase into a giant pile of workarounds and hacks really sucks.

And AI is particularly bad at this, as AI almost always prefers to work around a problem or do everything it can to meet the plan the user approved, even if that plan meets reality, it has problems. Which tends to lead to cascading misalignment with intentions and cascading infrastructure and architectural technical debt.

All of which culminate in less stable software, lower likelihood of long-term support of that software, and worse performance.

None of this actually proves that they aren’t writing slop. It just proves that the slop that they’ve written passes your tests.

Actually, reading stuff can be a bit of a high bar for some folks, unfortunately.

That’s an engineering culture problem. Not a PR problem.

It was a typo. Fixed.

Makes sense. I appreciate your replies

The commit history is 1 day.

Which is incredibly suspicious.

“Child safety” has simply become the marketing department for a rent-seeking surveillance industry.

Damn ain’t that the truth.

They want to identify the bots from the humans. Partially for advertising.

The maintainer you and said that they tirelessly tested, reviewed and verified changes over the course of 3 weeks to make sure that things were running and operating correctly.

This is how it should be done. It’s not like they’re vibe coding this.

Pretty much.

I’ve started using AI on a project last week and the first thing I do is write tests. Lots of tests.

With enough guardrails, you could actually get pretty decent quality output out of it and with enough regression tests, you can ensure that nothing’s actually breaking.

Similarly, reviewing its changes and actually reading the code that’s being generated to ensure correctness is necessary. However, I am finding ways to automate that and reduce the incident rate of problems to even lower than my co-workers.

Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?

If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.

And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not

Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.

If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.

If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.

Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?

If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.

So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?

Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.

We combat this with, funny enough, AI code review.

Much MUCH stricter structural, consistency, quality, and discovery standards on code through rules and docs. Well defined expectations, stricter testing standards…etc Then let some agents loose on PR review and they catch all sorts of problems. Especially with other AI slop.

Coincidentally, the process of doing all this actually reduces the sloppiness of the slop that we receive, as the AI tools writing this code consume these rules before generating code.

Sure they can. Because what are you going to do financially ruin yourself in a lawsuit you’re going to lose against Microsoft or some other mega Corp who doesn’t give a shit about GPL licencing?

If it’s not enforced with teeth then it doesn’t matter anymore.