Oh man, what the fuck. What I really don’t like about this is that you assume some sort of motivation when someone submits a PR. When they provide a feature implementation, a bug fix or a configuration change, you assume that the way things were before did not work for the contributor. That it was so problematic, that they invested quite a bit of time to scratch their own itch.

You simply can’t look at a PR in complete isolation and just evaluate whether its changes are positive or not. On some level, you’ll decide that, sure, if this user is better off with this change and it doesn’t break anything, then might as well merge it.
But there is no user here. It’s going to include pointless changes that just need to look plausible enough, so that this bot can bolster its credibility.

Wow, that is some unexpected news. I guess, they were always quite opinionated and their whole shtick was “GTK bad”, so with Noctalia still being Qt-based and them still using KDE applications, they do still stick to that principle.

Well, and I do have to say, when I tried KaOS before, it just felt like a more restricted version of most other KDE distributions. You’d need a very specific brand of masochism to find that preferrable. With that Niri+Noctalia desktop, they have a unique selling point beyond being restrictive, so I guess, godspeed to them.

No worries, I find plenty opportunities to remind myself of that. Currently playing a troll of Xom, because I’m dumb. And one time, the jackass teleports me into the middle of the fortress in Elf:2. Had to read 3 teleport scrolls, because they kept teleporting me just to different parts of the fortress, since I guess that fortress is quite large.

Apparently, I was too panicked to take a screenshot of that, but here’s another fun one from Xom’s teleportation shenanigans:

The most brutal part is that he always teleports you a variable number of times and you never know for sure, whether he’ll stop there, so I also have a version of that screenshot with --more-- at the bottom, where I still had hopes that he’d port me back out of there. He did not. 🫠

To be honest, the main reason I linked to that wiki page is that I had opened it to try to find out whether orbs of mayhem are still in the game. 🙃

Would not have surprised me, if they tweaked the design a bit with 0.34 and then gave them a different name, but at the same time, well, I did just describe that they have upsides and downsides, which is how the devs like to design things…

I’ve kind of stopped opening crystal doors until I’ve cleared at least another floor. I’m not sure, if you still get the same total XP when you do that, but just died a few too many times from crystal vaults…

For monster infighting, there’s also orbs of mayhem. But yeah, somewhat of a risky option. You can’t really control which monsters are affected and they can still decide to attack you, and the affected monsters get buffed. 😅

Well, much like the other person, I can only share my experience and you’ll have to decide whether it feels right for you.

It is just a lot of going through rejection, isolation and feeling like what I say doesn’t get taken seriously (in regards to when I went to the hospital

Yeah, at this point, I believe, that is a pretty universal frustration. I could tell you my own share of being told I’m simulating, while having three illnesses, which really shouldn’t have been too hard to detect. It is just perhaps more frustrating to folks on the spectrum, because we have a stronger sense of justice. But yeah, you can try to bring that up as a conversation topic with regular folks, too. They might not have quite the same frustration as you, but still typically their own story to tell.

So basically I have like decades of built up issues because I don’t have a means to get it out of my system, so yeah it is like a stewing pot that is always too full and bubbles over when I try to “serve” up information - it can get messy.

I would say stuff like that to myself, as sort of rationalization for why I’m having a different experience to everyone else.
But yeah, since I’ve accepted that I’m very likely on the spectrum (I don’t have a diagnosis, but I score quite high on internet self-tests), it is starting to feel more and more silly that I tried to come up with these explanations, because well, I guess, I am just different.

To me, that has made it easier to work with being different. I recognize that if I put people on blast with information, they will naturally get overwhelmed. Meanwhile, I have a friend at work, who I assume to also be on the spectrum + ADHD, and I can blast her with information and she really appreciates it, because she is always interested in my infodumps and does not get overwhelmed.

Well, and for everyone else, I can microdose the infodumps and then they do appreciate them, too. Like, you can put me up to talk about a topic and I can easily fill half an hour. People wouldn’t want me to fill half an hour in a normal conversation, but in a dedicated talk, it’s greatly appreciated.
I do actually work as a software engineer and sharing information between colleagues is one of the biggest challenges we have, so it’s quite a useful skill to have, especially also for training new folks and such. I’m not 100% sure what you have in mind with “information systems”, but any interpretation I can come up with would have the same challenge and the infodumping would be a strength.

That’s kind of the thing in general. I wouldn’t be too self-conscious about being different, when it comes to employment. Any employer worth their salt will recognize that being different is a strength, if applied in the right context. They might not have the right context where your strength is useful, so you will still need to search around for the right employer, but if you can find your place, you can likely be invaluable for that employer.

One last thing: This doesn’t work too well for me personally, but perhaps journaling or writing a diary might help you to get your frustration out of your system and to order your thoughts somewhat. It kind of feels like telling another person, I find, so I do try to do it every now and then, especially for topics where I don’t have anyone to tell it to…

They cause a huge amount of load, deteriorating the service for everyone else. I’m also guessing the time ranges in the graph, where there’s no data, is when OP’s server crashed from the load and had to restart.

That kind of shit can easily trigger alerting and will look like a DDoS attack. I would be pissed, too, if I dropped everything to see why my server is going down and it’s not even proper criminals, but rather just some silicon valley cunts.

My best guess is that they don’t just index things, but rather download straight from the internet when they need fresh training data. They can’t really cache the whole internet after all…

I mean, I’m not sure, what type of responses you expect, but I do always chuckle when someone posts here with “Not sure if autism” and then you open the post and it’s just a huge wall of text. Obviously not enough for a diagnosis, or even just telling whether someone really is on the spectrum, but it is quite a common sight.

What you actually wrote doesn’t sound of place either. Feeling like you don’t fit in and the whole depression thing isn’t inherent to the autistic experience, but still quite common, because others will view us as different or weird.

You could try out hobbies that tend to attract neurodivergent folks, like for example chess, board games, technology and books. Maybe you’ll find a sense of belonging there…

What I always find frustrating about that, is that even a colleague with much more Bash experience than me, will ask me what those options are, if I slap a set -euo pipefail or similar into there.

I guess, I could prepare a snippet like in the article with proper comments instead:

set -e # exit on error
set -u # exit on unset variable
set -o pipefail # exit on errors in pipes

Maybe with the whole trapping thing, too.

But yeah, will have to remember to use that. Most Bash scripts start out as just quickly trying something out, so it’s easy to forget setting the proper options…

I don’t have the Bash experience to argue against that, but from a general programming experience, I want things to crash as loudly as possible when anything unexpected happens. Otherwise, you might never spot it failing.

Well, and nevermind that it could genuinely break things, if an intermediate step fails, but it continues running.

Huh, so if you don’t opt for these more specific number types, then your program will explode sooner or later, depending on the architecture it’s being run on…?

I guess, times were different back when C got created, with register size still much more in flux. But yeah, from today’s perspective, that seems terrifying. 😅

What really frustrates me about that, is that someone put in a lot of effort to be able to write these things out using proper words, but it still isn’t really more readable.

Like, sure, unsigned is very obvious. But short, int, long and long long don’t really tell you anything except “this can fit more or less data”. That same concept can be expressed with a growing number, i.e. i16, i32 and i64.

And when someone actually needs to know how much data fits into each type, well, then the latter approach is just better, because it tells you right on the tin.

Oh man, a zero byte long unsigned integer? Lots of languages represent it as an empty tuple these days (the “unit” type), but from quickly scanning the documentation, it looks like HolyC doesn’t support tuples, so I guess you gotta get creative…

Man, I understand that it’s trying to give tips, but this really comes off as condescending. “Just create these three pieces of complex, non-obvious documentation and ensure you have highly automated specification and code quality checks.”

I also have to say, if you expect maintainers to be experts in how to correctly prompt LLMs, and expect them to be hot for reviewing/rewriting generated code, then they might as well prompt the LLMs themselves.
Sure, there may be extra effort involved by outside contributors – may, because they do attract folks who have no interest in putting in any effort – but is that really worth the overhead of having to communicate with the LLM through a middleman?

I’m open for counterarguments, but I always felt this was a silly way of looking at things. You cannot measure stuff at the quantum level without significantly altering what you measured. (You can never measure without altering what you measured, since we typically blast stuff with photons from a light source to be able to look at it, but for stuff that’s significantly larger than photons, the photons are rather insignificant.)

As such, you can look at measuring quanta in two ways:

1. Either the quantum had the state that you end up measuring all along. It is only “undetermined”, because strictly nothing can measure it before you do that first measurement.
2. Or you can declare it to have some magical “superposition”, from which it jumps into an actual state in the instant that you do the measurement.

Well, and isn’t quantum entanglement evidence for 1.? You entangle these quanta, then you measure one of them. At this point, you already know what the other one will give as a result for its measurement, even though you have not measured/altered it yet.
You can do the measurement quite a bit later and still get the result that you deduced from measuring the entangled quantum. (So long as nothing else altered the property you want to measure, of course…)

The analogy that makes most sense to me so far, is this:
You rip a photograph in half and put both halves into envelopes. Now you send one of the envelopes to your friend in Australia. You open the other envelope. Boom! Instantaneous knowledge of what’s in the envelope in Australia. Faster than light!!!

In quantum terms, you “rip a photograph in half” by somehow producing two quanta, which are known to have correlated properties. For example, you can produce two quanta, where one has a positive spin and the other a negative spin, and you know those to be equally strong. If you now measure the spin of the first quantum, you know that the other has the opposite spin.

I think, the problem is that management wants the expert humans to use the non-expert tools, because they’re non-experts and don’t recognize that it’s slower for experts. There’s also the idea that experts can be more efficient with these tools, because they can correct dumb shit the non-expert tool does.

But yeah, it just feels ridiculous. I need to think about the problem to apply my expertise. The thinking happens as I’m coding. If I’m supposed to not code and rather just have the coding be done by someone/-thing else, then the thinking does not occur and my expertise cannot guarantee for anything.
No, I cannot just do the thinking as I’m doing the review. That’s significantly more time-consuming than coding it myself.

Capsaicin (the chemical that causes the heat sensation in chilis) is soluble in oil, so it can definitely play a role.