Of course, but when you add enough noise you lose the signal and as a consequence no PRs gets merged anymore because it's too much effort to just find the ones you care about.
Don't allow PR's from people who aren't contributors, problem solved. Closing your doors to the public is exactly how people solved the "dark forest" problem of social media and OSS was already undergoing that transition with humans authoring garbage PRs for reasons other than genuine enthusiasm. AI will only get us to the destination faster.
I don't think anything of value will be lost by choosing to not interact with the unfettered masses whom millions of AI bots now count among their number.
That would be a huge loss IMO. Anyone being able to contribute to projects is what makes open source so great. If we all put up walls, then you're basically halfway to the bad old days of closed source software reigning supreme.
Then there's the security concerns that this change would introduce. Forking a codebase is easy, but so are supply chain attacks, especially when some projects are being entirely iterated on and maintained by Claude now.
> Anyone being able to contribute to projects is what makes open source so great. If we all put up walls, then you're basically halfway to the bad old days of closed source software reigning supreme.
Exaggeration. Is SQLite halfway to closed source software?
Open-source is about open source. Free software is about freedom to do things with code. None is about taking contributions from everyone.
For every cathedral (like SQLite) there are 100s of bazaars (like Firefox, Chrome, hundreds of core libraries) that depend on external (and especially first-time) contributors to survive (because not everyone is getting paid to sling open-source).
Is there a reason that you chose SQLite for your counterpoint? My hot take: I would say that SQLite is halfway to closed source software. Why? The unit tests are not open source. You need to pay to see them. As a result, it would be insanely hard to force SQLite in a sustainable, safe manner. Please don't read this opinion as disliking SQLite for their software or commercial strategy. In hindsight, it looks like real genius to resist substantial forks. One of the biggest "fork threats" to SQLite is the advent of LLMs that can (1) convert C code to a different langugage, like Rust, and (2) write unit tests. Still, a unit test suite for a database while likely contain thousands (or millions) of edge case SQL queries. These are still probably impossible to recreate, considering the 25 year history of bug fixing done by the SQLite team.
And how does one become a maintainer, if there's no way to contribute from outside? Even if there's some extensive "application process", what is the motivation for a relatively new user to go through that, and how do they prove themselves worthy without something very much like a PR process? Are we going to just replace PRs with a maze of countless project forks, and you think that will somehow be better, for either users or developers?
If I wanted to put up with software where every time I encounter a bug, I either have no way at all to report it, or perhaps a "reporting" channel but little likelihood of convincing the developers that this thing that matters to me is worthy of attention among all of their competing priorities, then I might as well just use Microsoft products. And frankly, I'd rather run my genitals though an electric cheese grater.
You get in contact with the current maintainers and talk to them. Real human communication is the only shibboleth that will survive the AI winter. Those soft skills muscles are about to get a workout. Tell them about what you use the software for and what kinds of improvements you want to make and how involved you'd like your role to be. Then you'll either be invited to open PRs as a well-known contributor or become a candidate for maintainership.
Github issues/prs are effectively a public forum for a software project where the maintainers play moderator and that forum is now overrun with trolls and bots filling it with spam. Closing up that means of contributing is going to be the rational response for a lot of projects. Even more will be shunted to semi-private communities like Discord/Matrix/IRC/Email lists.
Sadly VeraCrypt is not optimized for SSDs and has a massive performance impact compared to Bitlocker for full disk encryption because the SSD doesn't know what space is used/free with VeraCrypt.
VeraCrypt can be set to pass through TRIM. It just makes it really obvious which sectors are unused within your encrypted partition (they read back as 00 bytes)
Oh I did not know of this option, thanks! However, I was wrong about the reason for the performance loss on high speed SSDs and the issue is actually related to how VeraCrypt handles IRPs: https://github.com/veracrypt/VeraCrypt/issues/136#issuecomme...
Forgive me this shameless ad :) with the latest performance updates, Shufflecake ( https://shufflecake.net/ ) is blazing fast (so much, in fact, that exceeds performances of LUKS/dm-crypt/VeraCrypt in many scenarios, including SSD use.
The performance loss can be substantial on modern NVMe drives, up to 20 times slower. But I was wrong about the reason for the performance loss, it's not TRIM but how VeraCrypt handles I/O operations. You can see some numbers real numbers in this Github issue: https://github.com/veracrypt/VeraCrypt/issues/136
I've tried MacType before but sadly it came with significant slow down in many applications, lists would lag while scrolling, etc.
It's really annoying because all I really want is to disable ClearType on my primary high DPI monitor while keeping it with default settings for my two side monitors, but Windows does not let you configure it per monitor.
My impression was that you would apply this filter after the logs have reach your log destination, so there should be no difference for your services unless you host your own log infra, in which case there might be issues on that side. At least that's how we do it with Datadog because ingestion is cheap but indexing and storing logs long term is the expensive part.
The example on their website is editable and it looks like they overlay the highlighted output on top of the textarea with `pointer-events: none` like you mentioned.
Hmm .. and the approach already shows its weaknesses when I play with it: When I search for something on the page, it gives me twice as many hits as there are. And jumps around two times to each hit when I use the "next" button.
There is a neat `inert` html attribute you can use to disable all interactions as well as hide the text from ctrl+f searches. (Sadly Safari is the weird one out, and does not exclude the content from searches.)
This sounds awful, now you'll be reading some documentation or comment about llm-stream where they didn't mention the full namespace, so you have no idea which of the 50 different llm-stream tools they're talking about, and on top of that you can't even search for it online.
This paper just says that handwriting requires more cognitive load?
Which is exactly my experience with handwriting through my school years. When handwriting notes during lectures all focus goes to plotting down words, and it becomes impossible to actually focus on the meaning behind them.
It's due to every hyperscalar building out new AI datacenters. For example you have Google recently saying things like "Google tells employees it must double capacity every 6 months to meet AI demand", and that they need to increase capacity by 1000x within 4-5 years.
reply