I found it funny that in a sentence that mentions "those who can recognize an LLM’s reveals", a few words later, there's an em-dash. I've often used em-dashes myself, so I find it a bit annoying that use of em-dashes is widely considered to be an AI tell.
The em-dash alone is not an LLM-reveal -- it's how the em-dash is used to pace a sentence. In my experience, with an LLM, em-dashes are used to even pacing; for humans (and certainly, for me!), the em-dash is used to deliberately change pacing -- to introduce a pause (like that one!), followed by a bit of a (metaphorical) punch. The goal is to have you read the sentence as I would read it -- and I think if you have heard me speak, you can hear me in my writing.
Too much has been written about em-dashes and LLMs, but I'd highly recommend If it cites em dashes as proof, it came from a tool from Scott Smitelli if you haven't read it.
It's a brilliant skewering of the 'em dash means LLM' heuristic as a broken trick.
Oh, there's another stgit user! ^5
Coming from darcs, I couldn't use git until stgit came along, and today, it's one of those few tools I can't imagine working without. Nothing else matches my way of code hacking.
So often, I watch people making a big mess with git, and I always recommend stgit to them, so they can post proper and reviewable branches for merging. But in all these years, I could never convince anybody.
Why wouldn't you? Your codebase (if you're a business) exists to make you money, people being able to copy some unknown portions of it without further license if they somehow legally get their hands on a copy of it seems entirely irrelevant.
PS. I think this is much less clear and much less settled law than you are suggesting.
It's more nuanced. If I even have a few lines I can prove are mine, those parts are copywritable in the same way Pride and Prejudice is public domain but pride and prejudice and zombies is copyrighted.
At my mid 90s Unix shop, everyone had to use someone’s script which in turn called sccs. I don’t recall what it did, but I remember being annoyed that someone’s attempt to save keystrokes meant I had to debug alpha-quality script code before the sccs man page was relevant.
Adding -x to the shebang line was the only way to figure out what was really going on.
If you look at the URL, this is the stdlib for debugging leadership.
One project deciding to call their standard library stdlib doesn’t mean others cannot.
It does need some additional SEO work but this is a great name for what this product is IMO.
I'm thinking the SEO work is not insurmountable because if you were to draw a Venn diagram of std lib meanings:
- libc?
- libstdc++?
- any of the other standard library of any of our languages (python, java, go blah blah - many langs have rich standard libraries)
- ...
There's zero overlap with this specific case.
Maybe worded differently: When you say stdlib, it already depends on the context today. This new context has zero implementation overlap with those existing contexts but it is the same concept.
Yeah I think this is a great name and worth the small SEO battle.
> I've got an internal alarm that starts to go off somewhere around 72 hours.
Nah, in my experience, if you've got good commit hygiene you can often merge even ancient commits.
Here's a pretty hefty commit I merged five years after it was originally written, converting a ~100k line codebase from GTK to SDL2, written in 2015, committed in 2020, with tons of development in between, with "10 files changed, 777 insertions(+), 804 deletions(-)"
reply