I agree that “RTFM” can be insensitive, and even mean. However, the place it comes from is genuine. It’s nobodies job to tell you exactly what page to look at. If you’ve dug through the docs and still can’t find your answer, make it explicit that you’ve searched the manual, and perhaps be explicit about parts you don’t quite understand.

The whole “RTFM” thing was born from people asking for help when they obviously hadn’t made a proper try themselves first.

I was surprised to see all the nordics abstaining from voting (really, almost all of Europe). I would say that abstaining is a long-shot from voting “no”, especially if you see it as overwhelmingly likely that this will go through without your vote. Voting no is explicitly stating that you’re against the formulation, while voting yes is saying that you’re explicitly for it. Abstaining can indicate that you are (for example) for the intent, but have reservations about the specific wording. In that case, you may not want to stop the declaration from going through, but still want to signal that you have reservations and don’t want to unequivocally support it.

Had something like this happen to me. Luckily, we have laws in place stating that collections companies cannot follow up disputed claims. So I emailed the collections company, with the people that sent the claim to them on CC, telling them I disputed the claim (with some attachments to back up why). They responded by basically saying “sorry, our bad, the people that sent this claim can pound sand.” Then I never heard anything more about it.

What sucks though, is that it’s really stressful to have something go to collections. Most people would probably just have paid, because they get stressed out and don’t know the law.

Full disclaimer: This law may very well not exist where you live.

Which is still utterly absurd, because it implies that a harder working dev would be spending more time chatting to a bot.

Now that is a fun-fact! I knew the guy was called Mercator, but didn’t know about the Latin origin, and can definitely see the origin of the name spreading as a misconception.

Another fun-fact: The Mercator projection was, at its inception, the first map that could be used for long-distance sea navigation over the mediterranean and Atlantic in the sense that axes are scaled such that courses plotted on the map actually match the compass course you need to follow to get somewhere. This also happens to be the reason it became popular, and the reason it was made, rather than the commonly quoted reason of “making Europe big at the expense of things closer to the equator”.

I may be mistaken here, but I think the concept of a “continental shelf” is pretty well defined geologically. That is: Outside a land mass, the ocean floor extends a certain distance before dropping off to the deep ocean floor. An island would be a piece of land that sticks out of the sea from this continental shelf, while the “continent” includes the entire shelf, and all the land masses that stick out of the ocean on that shelf.

Of course, this seems to break down a bit for e.g. the Europe/Asia divide (and probably a lot more), but the concept of “continents” vs. “islands” can make sense geologically, although the “continents” are then different from the geopolitical borders ones we usually talk about.

I agree with the premise of “simple but hard”. However, I still want to underscore that large areas of the ocean will at any given time be covered in clouds or fog. Sure, once you find the ship the first time, you’ve narrowed your search radius significantly, but a ship that can move at 30 knots can move around 1500 nautical miles (2800 km) without being seen under just 48 hours of cloud cover. That means any intel on the position of a ship carrying weapons that can easily strike at ranges of 500-1000 km is fresh produce. Just a day after you spotted that ship, it can have moved almost 1500 km, and if you lose track of it under clouds during your next satellite pass, it can suddenly be 3000 km from where you last spotted it.

What this means is that the “hard” element here is significant. Even the “simple” element becomes complicated by stuff like night time and cloud cover. All this taken into account, there are very few countries in the world with enough surveillance satellites and processing capacity to actually keep a pin on a ship at sea over any significant period of time.

Wait, you didn’t have some git-based thing with an off-site upstream?

One of the worst things about this is that the person vibe coding just ends up shitting on the reviewers time. Like… you couldn’t even bother to write a real PR, and now you want me to spend time filtering your shit? Fuck off.

It’s 3.7x more lines of code that performs 2,000 times worse than the actual SQLite.

Pretty much my experience with LLM coding agents. They’ll write a bunch of stuff, and come with all kinds of arguments about why what they’re doing is in fact optimal and perfect. If you know what you’re doing, you’ll quickly find a bunch of over-complicating things and just plain pitfalls. I’ve never been able to understand the people that claim LLMs can build entire projects (the people that say stuff like “I never write my own code anymore”), since I’ve always found it to be pretty trash at anything beyond trivial tasks.

Of course, it makes sense that it’ll elaborate endlessly about how perfect its solution is, because it’s a glorified auto-complete, and there’s plenty of training data with people explaining why “solution X is better”.

but why countries?

For the same reason as personal property, just on a larger scale. You don’t want some rando to come and set up camp in your kitchen, so we draw lines on a map and say “this is your spot, you make the rules in your spot”. Similarly, we collectively don’t want some other group of randos to show up and tell us what clothes we’re allowed to wear, or that drunk-driving is suddenly allowed. So we draw lines on a map and say “this is our spot, where we make the rules”.

Of course, ideally, the whole world would agree on a reasonable set of laws and mode of administration, and countries wouldn’t be needed anymore. However, we’re pretty far off from that being possible. To put it on point: If we had no countries today, would you prefer the russian, Chinese, German or other set of laws and administration? How would you decide which to apply globally?

See, this is what I mean. I never said that. I never said anything close to that. At this stage you’re just making up opinions you want me to have so that you have something to attack.

It’s obvious that you’ve already decided that you “know” what the person you’re arguing with means and think, and then you’re attacking that instead of recognising that you’ve misunderstood them.

Am I the only person that’s extremely put off (and in a way intrigued) by Americans hang up with “race”. Like, even the fact that there are “official” races is very strange to me. In my country we absolutely operate with a concept of “ethnicity”, but that’s not set in stone, and is a kind of mix of “where do your ancestors come from”, “what is your phenotype”, and “what culture do you identify with”. The idea of having a “race” that is set in stone and that people actually care about is pretty absurd to me.

You can fine-grain nr. 2 even more: You can give access to e.g. modify files only in a certain sub-tree, or run only specific commands with only specific options.

A restrictive yet quite safe approach is to only permit e.g. git add, git commit, and only allow changes to files under the VC. That effectively prevents any irreversible damage, without requiring you to manually approve all the time.

You’re absolutely right. I mostly run a pretty simple local model though, so it’s not like it’s very expensive either.

Saying that it can serve the same purpose does not mean that I mean the two are equivalent in every aspect.

Just based on how you’ve responded so far it seems like you’re wilfully misinterpreting how I actually use an LLM for this purpose, especially with responses referring to LLMs causing people to commit suicide and offloading decision making or the thought process itself to an LLM.

It really seems like you’re wilfully misinterpreting what I’m writing.

That is correct. However, an LLM and a rubber duck have in common that they are inanimate objects that I can use as targets when formulating my thoughts and ideas. The LLM can also respond to things like “what part of that was unclear”, to help keep my thoughts flowing. NOTE: The point of asking an LLM “what part of that was unclear” is NOT that it has a qualified answer, but rather that it’s a completely unqualified prompt to explain a part of the process more thoroughly.

This is a very well established process: Whether you use an actual rubber duck, your dog, writing a blog post / personal memo (I do the last quite often) or explaining your problem to a friend that’s not at all in the field. The point is to have some kind of process that helps you keep your thoughts flowing and touching in on topics you might not think are crucial, thus helping you find a solution. The toddler that answers every explanation with “why?” can be ideal for this, and an LLM can emulate it quite well in a workplace environment.