I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn’t quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole “hasn’t been merged yet” is missing that it hasn’t even been created.
I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn't quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole "hasn't been merged yet" is missing that it hasn't even been created.
An indentation change is a definition code change. And as I pointed out, it's a py file, and Python is an indent-significant language.
So you're using [] as an alternative function call syntax to (), usable with nullable parameters?
What's the alternative? let x = n is null ? null : math.sqrt(n);?
In principle, I like the idea. I wonder whether something with a question mark would make more sense, because I'm used to alternative null handling with question marks (C#, ??, ?.ToString(), etc). And I would want to see it in practice before coming to an early conclusion on whether to establish as a project principle or not.
math.sqrt?() may imply the function itself may be null. (? ) for math.sqrt(?n)? 🤔
I find [] problematic because it's an index accessor. So it may be ambiguous between prop or field indexed access and method optional param calls. Dunno how that is in Dart specifically.
The issue, presumably the PR (linked at the top of the issue because of reference).
Look at the code change. It gets inputs and loops over them and seems to do an in-place fixup. But the code indent is wrong, and it even changed the function definition of the unrelated next function. In Python, the indent-logic-significance language.
I assume they briefly showed the code on stage. Even then it should have been obvious to any developer. py file, messy indent, changes unrelated function.
Please correct me if this is the wrong PR.
I would make Thursday AI day and do everything with AI. And Friday is recovery day, where I discard everything that didn't work, and do what I want, to recover motivation for long-term sustainability.
I wonder if and when they would notice a productivity difference. I certainly couldn't and wouldn't be able to do that indefinitely.
Makes me think used tokens, which is very easy to fake.
If I were in a malicious environment, I'd be interested in gaming the system, excessively producing AI code even if I never use it.
We have found no evidence of malicious actors abusing this vector"
"We see no evidence of that which we do not monitor."
These press releases/responses seem to never include "we track x and y and see no evidence". Or "we would be able to identify them but do not see evidence". I can only assume the worst.
I understand the need for full detailed reasoning, but that legalese document is not approachable or accessible.
I wish they had at least given a plain language summary of the changes they intend to make. For full reasoning you could still refer to the whole document.
I guess I'll trust the EFF in their interpretation.
Numerous invalid patents have been granted in the past, and had to be challenged to be corrected.
These suggested changes are horrendous for a just or sustainable patent system.
There may be opportunities for change or efficiency gains, but blocking and evading challenges in various ways is not a good approach. It excessively favors patent trolls which act maliciously and damaging to other companies, the economy and society at large.
I can't say I've made such a jump because I wasn't in such a (prolonged) situation.
My suggestions would be
Are you employed? Can you change projects/teams/work/customers within your company? If not, look for other opportunities. If that's all you get at your current workplace, and you want change, switch to somewhere else.
You have success stories of delivering. Even if tech and experience doesn't fully fit with other employers, they will value the experience you have.
Studying, possibly alongside work, is also possible, and not uncommon. That way you could widen your technical expertise without having a new employer already, possibly opening other opportunities.
What I wrote. I wouldn't want to do AI Thursday and kinda malicious compliance for a prolonged time.