𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠 @ ChairmanMeow @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

931

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's assuming you read it that way. I don't really read that section as "Hey go use Copilot for this". Rather as "If you're using Copilot, here's how to do it with that".

But why would they do so? Those hostages are the only bargaining chip they have left.

Hamas has offered to stick with the previous peace deal that would see the release of the remaining hostages, but Israel has decided that peace is not an option here.

I mean, that's entirely assuming that Microsoft also accepts that the use of Copilot requires no documentation. And given that Microsoft does have decades of experience dealing with users doing all kinds of dumb shit, they might not necessarily agree.

No, HL:Alyx functions as a sort-of prequel. The ending of it does provide a stepping stone from which HL3 could pick up again.

Yeah I think that's why it's valuable to talk about these additions. Is mentioning LLM prompts even of any value?

But that is a separate (and imo much stronger) argument than the whole "mentioning Copilot is MS shilling for their own products"-argument.

It could, if it annoumced itself as such.

Instead it pretended to be a rape victim and offered "its own experience".

Also it's not a single line - when looking at the source file - and a complete section instead.

True, I misjudged the original screenshot at the top of the thread. Still, it is all the way at the bottom of the page.

1. It's inside the dotnet Docs. dotnet has nothing to do with an IDE. You can code/run dotnet code in any editor or terminal if you like.
2. This person assumes that Visual Studio is the only IDE for dotnet. Looks like they never heard of Rider or VS Code or anything else.

This seems a bit harsh. The dotnet docs have tons of examples where it's shown how to do something in VS Studio or VSCode. "How to use dotnet feature X in product Y" doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to include in your docs, especially with Microsoft having developed both.

WTF is he defining as an ad? "Advertising is the practice and techniques employed to bring attention to a product or service". The whole section is bascially "Hey you can use Copilot to do this" - that's an ad right there.

Again I think you're being too harsh here. Not every mention of a product is necessarily an ad. The dotnet docs aren't an ad for dotnet for example. Given that this section is at the bottom of the page, doesn't demand any attention from the user and doesn't really seem like a direction for the user to start using Copilot, I find it hard to really consider it a proper advertisement. It's not saying "Hey you can use Copilot to do this", it's saying "If you want to use this with Copilot, here's how to do so". It makes no effort in convincing the reader that they should use Copilot, it's just instructions for those who already do use it.

There's also plenty of other places where the dotnet docs refer to non-dotnet products, e.g. this page on deep learning: https://github.com/dotnet/docs/blob/main/docs/machine-learning/deep-learning-overview.md

It mentions other products like Tensorflow and ONNX there. Are these mentions also ads?

1. A deployment target is not the same as "AI"
2. If a page/section is not named like "How to deploy example app to Azure" then it shouldn't contain any reference to Azure. And yes you should complain about such stuff if it exists.

Plenty of the how-to guides end with "and here's how to deploy your stuff to Azure!". The dotnet docs even have an entire section on Azure, a service that has very little if nothing to do with how dotnet works. But it's still mentioned and documented in the dotnet docs, because it can be useful information for dotnet developers.

That's basically what the whole issue is about. WTF are you even talking about then? Just shut up and give an upvote.

They're referring to how they don't find it useful info, but other people who do use Copilot more intensively might find it useful. It's also a completely different point: the creator of the issue objects to the docs section because they consider it an ad for Copilot. The comment author disagrees, but says they'd rather see it removed because it's just not that useful information, though acknowledging that they might not be the target audience. It's a different argument that does contribute to the discussion imo.

I mean, this user does quite eloquently raise a good point: https://github.com/dotnet/docs/issues/45996#issuecomment-2848267714

It's a single link all the way at the bottom of the page, so not really obtrusive. And given that there are people using Copilot this way, it's probably better to give them something to use docs-wise rather than leaving them to Copilot's mercy. The article linked to is also pretty much just instructions on how to do it, no real gushing about how amazing Copilot supposedly is.

His hands are even floating above his body, not even resting.

Proton edited and deleted some of their responses because it made them look even worse. You can find one here: https://archive.ph/quYyb

Complete delusion believing Trump will "stand up for the little guy". The GOP is the party that gutted net neutrality after all. They had the Chevron doctrime overturned. The Thiel-Musk funded party standing up for "little tech"? Please.

The CEO tried to spin it off as "missing context" but the responses show he's either completely delusional, has been comatose for the past two decades or is just pro-Trump. I can't look inside his head, but his tacit endorsement of the party actively dismantling US democracy is not something that can really "lack context".

Proton, the company, has donated to liberal parties. The CEO seems to be a bit more of the "libertarian" type, that doesn't seem to mind everything the GOP did in the past years.

The company seems fine but I think they're referring to the pro-Trump comments the CEO made.

I got a big banner page that asked me if I wanted to turn it on once I updated. Can't miss that really.

Bookmarks I use for pages I want to store for a longer time. Tab groups I can use for pages I have open at the moment, e.g. because I'm working on X and Y, so I group the tabs based on X or Y. But I don't need to keep the tabs between sessions.

Well that's A) not a basic human right (though I generally agree with it) but mostly B) a drivers license is not available to everyone. There are plenty of crimes that can see you get your license revoked entirely, potentially permanently.

If you've exhibited clear mental volatility, a tendency for mass violence or straight-up potential for terrorist activities, why should society trust you with a car? Perhaps experts should first determine the risk of you driving before allowing you to obtain a license.

Being allowed to drive is a privilege, not a right. It's fine to extend that privilege to those who are deemed fit to have it, so then it should also be fine to deny it to those who are deemed a danger.

I don't think that's the point.

Either you believe anyone could be rehabilitated, including Hitler. Or alternatively, you don't believe that, but that is an admission that there exists some line which if crossed means a person becomes irredeemable.

Then the question becomes: where is that line for you?

You might have a bad time with all the plagues that have gone extinct since then.

There's no "human right to drive". It's why you need to get a license in the first place.

That's a dark blue suit though, matching the dress code. Trump wore a much brighter blue.

And who put them there?

I mean, non-voters aren't much more progressive really. They're more likely to be independents (in the US at least). See:

They do skew a bit more D, but not massively so. They're also largely non-white, less well educated and poorer. It's a bit of a toss-up whether any of those demographics skew R or D.

I don't really see much evidence that they're more progressive, more centrist at best really. Although I suppose if you flatten political beliefs on a 1-dimensional axis, that does mean more progressive on average.

Do note that this differs per state, and voter turnout is also correlated with general results skewing harder in a certain direction. Complexities all around!