Piatro

Yeah then you start debating the merits of hate crime as a concept and I am not even slightly equipped to deal with that!

I had similar queries around "biological sex" vs gender a while ago and my understanding now is that biological sex is surprisingly hard to define. You can't go by genitalia because sometimes a person creates the "wrong" ones. You can't go by chromosomes because again, sometimes they're different. And you can't go by other physical traits (Adams apple for example) because again sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not, completely unrelated to sex. You can sort of go by hormones but not really (just look at professional sport) so it's all a bit of a mess. It's way easier for me to just accept there's a spectrum and move on, because to me it's way harder to actually define where the line is than to just dismiss the line entirely.

Without the context of your understanding of the debate as you've outlined here we can only guess what you meant by "the debate" in your previous comment so thanks for taking the time to describe it. I absolutely agree that there needs be great care around the legitimacy of when someone declaring their gender should be taken seriously or not in some limited and extreme circumstances (prisons spring to mind). I think your characterisation of the terf argument if you speak to normal people is about accurate from my limited experience. The media and some outspoken terfs like JK are on the more extreme side of that where they say that it is already "too easy" to legitimately change their gender. Which is where I fundamentally disagree with them since I know the hoops some of my friends have had to jump through to even get the smallest amount of help from health providers.

(I'm using "legitimate" above as a sort of catch all for legal or what the person genuinely feels. I don't think legal and legitimate are the same thing in this context, hence the distinction.)

In the nicest possible way, what do you mean by "both sides" in this context? One side says that trans people either don't or shouldn't exist and the other side says they should exist. I know that may sound extreme or combative but that's fundamentally "the debate" so I genuinely want to understand how you reached this "both sides have merit" stance that some people close to me also take but I've never understood.

I'm no linguist but it's all basically unwritten rules and conventions and the examples you gave are wrong in the sense that they break other rules. For example noone asks "read you manga", they say "Do you read manga?" In which case "I don't" is fine, but "I readn't" isn't. In short it can't be done with every verb, and as a native speaker I'm not aware of an explicit rule that governs which verbs can and can't have contractions.

You do you. People generally discourage rebase because it rewrites history but that's what you're doing anyway. You can achieve the same result with revase --interactive and following the instructions to squash all your in progress commits into a single commit. That way you don't have to figure out how many commits between your in progress and dev(for your reset command) as the rebase will handle it for you.

Again, this existed before AI. Typo squatting, supply chain attacks, automated package uploads, CI pipeline infection, they're all known attack vectors. That's not to say this isn't a concern, just that it's a known risk and the addition of "AI" doesn't, to my eyes, increase that risk. If your SSH keys don't require a password, you have taken the decision to make those keys less secure but more convenient to use. That's pretty much always the tradeoff in security.

The risk here is slightly overblown or misrepresented. Just because a fork exists doesn't mean that anyone has even read it, let alone run it on their system. For this to be a real threat they would have to publish packages with identical or similar names (ie typo-squatting) to public package repositories which this article didn't have any information on but which is a known problem long before AI. The level of obfuscation and number of repos affected is impressive but ultimately unlikely to have widespread impact to anyone besides GitHub.

I've only used helm and hadn't considered kustomize as an equivalent, what about kustomize makes it bette in your opinion?

Either works

Personally I rename them to something meaningful and they get merged if there are no other references. PayPal is especially bad for completely meaningless rubbish in the payee field and they tend to be ad-hoc purchases so I don't fiddle with them much. The category is the most relevant bit for me.

You're making a battery last a week in an FP4?

Yes I was wrong to say that this an implementation detail rather than a protocol problem as the OpenSSH release notes to prevent this vulnerability include extensions to the SSH Transport Protocol, however I still believe that the headline is sensationalist at best since it can and has been protected against by patching ssh clients and servers. It would be entirely unreasonable in the majority of cases to simply stop using SSH on the basis of this vulnerability and that's why I think the headline exaggerates the problem. The Register has a much more measured take on this including comments from the paper's authors that people shouldn't panic and try to fix immediately.