A curious, playful and very cuddely cat creature.
Collector of random knowledge and cheese lover.
Easily scared by wasps and humans.
Trying to be more open, but verbal communication is a challenge.
Long term goal is to make a full set of 'functional cat gear' consiting of ears, tail, claw assembly and contactless whiskers. Currently looking for ways to actuate a soft ear.
Favorite and interresting tech:
- Git
- SSH
-Tor
- Wireguard
- Kerberos
- GNU TALER
- GUIX / Nix
"4. In the dialog, copy the email address shown. Keep this address private. Anyone who has it can create issues or merge requests as if they were you." GitLab 17.06.25
Ah yes a secret recipient mail address for authentication, because E-Mail surely would never leak metadata /s
Unnötige Komplexität vermeiden, außer es geht um CI/CD.
Danke GitLab für 'Inputs' Möglichkeit git push optionen in meine YAML Dateien zu interpolieren bevor diese geparst werden.
Jetzt braucht eure DSL nur noch Makros /j
Immerhin hab ich damit Parameter die vom new Pipeline UI validiert werden /srs
git checkout Abendessen
@multisn8 From my experience with GitLab wich also has yaml, these files define a lot of metadata about the jobs to run. These include rules on when to run, what the job does, what outputs to save once complete, where to run, etc.
Its also used to render graphs of the 'pipeline' and other bookkeeping.
That the actual instructions are also put into that yaml file is probably just the result of chasing flexibility for oneline jobs, there shouldn't be much stopping one from just starting a script from there.
Also technically it would be possible to start a binary in a container that ships without a shell but no clue if anyone botherd implementing such exec capabilitys into their CI solution, but container tools like Podman support it.
Python is like Bash, just worse.
Made to run components written in languages that aren't dogslow.
Every single piece of crap adds LLMs and then people forward screenshots of messengers and you still can't fulltext search them in Slack.
OH: "Füchse sind im prinzip Hunde auf denen Katzenfirmware läuft ... oder wars doch andersrum?"
Tiefgreifende philosophische Überlegungen hier #eh22leaks
OH: Da kommt ne Antenne mit nem Furry hintendran.
#eh22leaks
Um auch mal eine optimistischere Aussicht zu teilen, wenn sich die Dinge zum Schlechten wandeln, schafft das auch Motivation sich mit der Materie auseinanderzusetzen und damit eine Chance. Die es nach eigenen Maßstäben besser zu machen als zuvor.
The reason I get so annoyed about people pitching LLMs as a way to 'democratise programming' or as end-user programming tools is that they solve the wrong problem.
The hard part of programming is not writing code. It's unambiguously expressing your problem and desired solution. Imagine if LLMs were perfect programmers. All you have to do is write a requirements document and they turn it into a working program. Amazing, right? Well, not if you've ever seen what most people write in a requirements document or seen the output when a team of good programmers works from a requirements document.
The most popular end-user programming language in the world (and, by extension, the most popular programming language), with over a billion users, is the Calc language that is embedded in Excel. It is not popular because it's a good language. Calc is a terrible programming language by pretty much any metric. It's popular because Excel (which is also a terrible spreadsheet, but that's a different rant) is basically a visual debugger and a reactive programming environment. Every temporary value in an Excel program is inspectable and it's trivial to write additional debug expressions that are automatically updated when the values that they're observing change.
Much as I detest it as a spreadsheet, Excel is probably the best debugger that I have ever used, including Lisp and Smalltalk.
The thing that makes end-user programming easy in Excel is not that it's easy to write code, it's that it's easy to see what the code is doing and understand why it's doing the wrong thing. If you replace this with an LLM that generates Python, and the Python program is wrong, how does a normal non-Python-programming human debug it? They try asking the LLM, but it doesn't actually understand the Python so it will often send them down odd rabbit holes. In contrast, every intermediate step in an Excel / Calc program is visible. Every single intermediate value is introspectable. Adding extra sanity checks (such as 'does money leaving the account equal the money paid to suppliers?') is trivial.
If you want to democratise programming, build better debuggers, don't build tools that rapidly generate code that's hard to debug.
In honor of trans day of visibility, I'm posting this pride flag that was created by NASA, but recently deleted from their website: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/14627.
It’s disheartening to see AI reactionism lead my community to a 180° on copyright.
Everyone is merrily attacking LibGen now. If it didn’t exist, big tech companies would still find training data, it just wouldn’t be accessible to regular people.
Should I really be surprised to find that a preview version of M$ Teams is hosted at devspaces.skype.com
This feeling when one finishes a tool that feels like it should exist, is just amazing.
Now I can finally use our developer keys as certificate authority's.
