I’ve seen that name a bunch but never bothered figuring out who that is. Does this mean I put it off for long enough that I no longer need to?

“Check out my bookshelf!”

“Wow, quite the collection”

“Yeah, they’re all on the same subject, too”

“What’s that?”

“Fascism”

Patching a library is fine if you’re building a final executable — something where you know what the final dependency graph looks like ahead of time.

It’s not fine if you’re building a library. You don’t know if a consumer will also want to use an unpatched version of that library, and depending on the scenario that could result in duplicated instances (each with their own internal state), failure to build or load, or mismatches in data layout or function definitions.

I would avoid using a library like that if I could.

Of course, sometimes the person who can make that decision is the creator of npm itself, and says “No I don’t believe I will”: https://github.com/isaacs/jackspeak/issues/20

Anthropic, without an ounce of self-awareness: “Hey, just cuz you used AI to change it doesn’t mean you can copy our stuff and use it to compete against us!”

Just to be clear: My reply was a (sarcastic but not inaccurate) summary of the attitude of the blog post.

My baby?

“Harm”? What is “harm”? There are only well-made products or not-so-well-made products!

Annyone

We are ruinning language for the sake of engagement.

Went from believing “yes” is inevitable to believing “no” is inevitable instead of learning the lesson that most of this is just random

In context, it sounds like he’s “disappointed a lot” by people choosing to use AI, which is a crucial distinction. His objection is about the kind of society we’re sleepwalking into, not the technical maturity of the current crop of software.

AI’s generated text is “too dry and too perfect, and I want something from a human being, and I’m disappointed a lot.”

I agree with Prime on most things, but I think he’s getting this one wrong.

There are more options than just “light-hearted satire” and “earnest business idea”.

The FOSDEM talk is silly, and reads like a skit, but it has a gravely serious undertone.

The security guy has posted on Twitter “I still can’t believe he hooked it up to Stripe lol”.

Meanwhile the LinkedIn of the other guy describes him as a “researcher of political economy of FOSS” at Rochester Institute of Technology, and he runs a non-profit about FOSS for humanitarian aid.

He’s also been very active replying to people talking about the conference talk or the Malus site, asking whether they think this should be legal and what we can do to protect the future of open source.

I think these are people who take this threat very seriously, and are willing to expose themselves to litigation in order to force the issue into courts.

Horror story called “The Enigma of Amigara Fault”.

That’s her! “Lesbian Georgia, Buddy — The Quintessential”

Get strong, stick

I’m trying!

It refers to the O’Keeffe

So in 5 years we’ll all be running v260.182.1?

JS for sure.

It has a reputation among programmers as being a bit of a mess, but I think the reasons behind that reputation are largely irrelevant to your use case.

Basically:

1. It has some bad decisions about basic stuff, like truthiness, equality, coercion. But those aren’t major stumbling blocks, really. When they run into those situations, they’ll probably already be aware that they’re trying something weird and won’t have the same already-developed intuition about “how it should work” that many of us are bringing to the table.
2. Production deployment can easily turn into a Rube Goldberg machine. I think this is mostly what the kneejerk “really? JS?” response is about. Different ES versions, module systems, WASM, dependency hell, transpilers on top of transpilers, and a billion different runtimes. And the fact that everyone and their grandma apparently wants to build a custom DSL on top of JS that requires additional transpiler plugins or codegen steps. But your students won’t have to worry about that shit. Just pick one environment and do that. Maybe warn them that stackoverflow might use different syntax (require vs import) or try to import stuff that doesn’t exist in their environment though.

The vulnerability is coming from inside the house

Imagine making a positive reference to the present year.