Kissaki

• 44% Male/Masculine
• 39% No information
• 18% Female/Feminine

Tech bias even on public domain open contribution datasets. Apparently could use more female contributors.

A standard for build output might make sense to me. Maybe just throw cache stuff in .cache and build output to .build (with intermediate artifacts in there as well potentially).

When enabled via flag, dotnet puts stuff into artifacts/obj, artifacts/bin, and artifacts/publish respectively. I like that. So much better than every proj folder having their own.

And there's really no need to make it a dot folder. For the publish you don't want to anyway. And you may want to navigate to bin as well, to run a build or inspect the output.

It depends.

If you can do a static website, don't need user content management, do it. You evade all kinds of trouble and technical complexity.

warning letter? throw them out right away

A bit too broad to give a specific answer from my side.

Overall, I prefer web based over apps, because I can CSS hack and if necessary JS hack them.

Web also means it doesn't litter my PC or mobile phone or tablet. And that it can't fetch more data than it needs or I want it to have access to.

Bad software is bad software, no matter if it's installed or on the web.

The git compatibility is necessary for adoption and connected use.

jj does significantly reduce the work interface, but the git compatibility increases complexity again.

I tried it out a little bit a few days ago, and found it interesting. But given my git knowledge and tooling, I can't reasonably switch. First, I would miss my TortoiseGit Log view (entrypoint to everything). But also, the connection between jj and git seems complex and potentially error prone.

As a fresh and independent tool I can definitely see how it's much easier and better, especially for people not familiar with Git.

from some time ago

It's a fair statement and personal experience, but a question is, does this change with tool changes and user experience? Which makes studies like OP important.

Your >95% garbage claim may very well be an isolated issue due to tech or lib or llm usage patters or whatnot. And it may change over time, with different models or tooling.

It's not a duplicate URL. You posted an image, they posted a link to the study.

I mainly wanted to give the additional context and discussion, more so than say "has already posted".

I assume I must have compared a modified date or sth, dunno. Misled by it being shown further down in my feed.

~~(minutes) earlier~~ post linking the study

So many words…

to

oh god please no

wth is all that coloring [in the design samples]

Documentation: A place where we can create documentation for projects that don’t have the documentation or is very basic.

Why create or extend documentation outside of the project when you could improve the project docs themselves?

Projects that are open source but don't allow easy doc contributions?

I find contributing to projects very easy. When I read some docs, and find an issue, I create a pull request with a fix. When I'm interested in a project, I take a look at open issues. Often the website and software project are separate repos with separate issues.

I find the idea of a community of people sharing ideas, open tasks, seeking and finding contributors compelling, but I'm skeptical any new platform could reach critical mass. Maybe that'd be a matter of approach and long term effort.

Stop allowing full unfettered access

There's a decline button. At least privacy settings don't repeatedly come up again (what this post is about).