jj4211

Why should misgendering be treated with more respect than the respect given?

You imply they intended some disrespect. They used a default pronoun and when asked to do otherwise they obliged, despite being immediately accused of doing a shitty thing. Folks are being offended on behalf of a person that hasn't said anything about how that person feels one way or another.

A "could you use a non-specific pronoun instead of masculine when you don't know" might have gone a long way, but implying some mundane default use of a pronoun is malicious and shitty is just a really excessive amount of vitriol when absolutely nothing was meant by any of it.

I know about singular they, but I don't like it. Perhaps because there was a movement in my childhood education to "correct" the use of singular they, as noted in that wikipedia article there was significant pressure for hundreds of years to make people not use plural pronouns singularly. I for one wish that a singular, human appropriate, non-specific personal pronoun emerged because singular "they" just grates my nerves.

Note that malus.sh is a satire pointing out something that the companies are certainly very happy about, but the real AI companies haven't been that forthcoming with the laundering of copying software through LLM.

"I used to feel guilty about not attributing open source maintainers. Then I remembered that guilt doesn't show up on quarterly reports. Thank you, MalusCorp."

Chad Stockholder Engineering Director, Profit First LLC

I happened to pick up in the article the neutral pronoun and have avoided it, but to accuse a pretty casual use of a prounoun as being a shitty thing to do is.. a shitty thing to do.

Incidentally, I hate the plural pronoun as the stand in for unspecified. Especially when talking about a company versus an individual, it is useful to use the plural to refer to company and a singular for the individual. Otherwise it's a vague mess. It's so confusing when folks are using plural to refer to singular people.

I think it's less being uncertain about the vulnerability and more about being uncertain about all the other drama surrounding it.

This Dormann fellow paints a believable picture of MSRC as an organization ruined by mismanagement and left incompetent and dysfunctional. A very banal scenario of failure that is familiar to anyone with experience with big businesses. Eclipse seems to see a more malicious intent and assumes that MSRC had it out for Eclipse personally from the onset for... some reason.

Eclipse may have found real stuff, but the communication style is a bit unhinged so it's hard to evaluate the surrounding drama. This unhinged communication style combined with a bureaucratic MSRC could lead to them not being able to understand Eclipse's attempt to explain.

The question is whether Eclipse was unhinged from the onset or understandably driven off the deep end by malicious treatment by MSRC. Both scenarios are believable, hence the sensible take away that we have one side of the story and while we should recognize that, we must also consider that an alternate scenario played out.

That was my thought, what a absolute mess of a 'sentence'.

Which is crazy as they also made a big deal about how many users don't want an AI result and how they are credibly the choice for those people.

I get offering the feature, but insisting upon it while also bragging about how they cater to the majority of respondents that didn't like it is bizarre..

Google at least is consistent, they just plainly act as of the people who dislike it don't exist.

Guy at work proposed AI workflow enhancements...

His whole idea was to take a workflow and just replace a few roles...

Developer becomes "AI developer agent" Reviewer becomes "AI reviewer agent" Tester becomes "AI code testing agent"

Rinse and repeat until the only block that was human was "Marketing Engineer". Guess what department the guy worked in...

Another thing is that it kind of instills a false confidence. Reviewers are getting lazy when the LLM gives a 'LGTM' and letting stuff through that bites us in the ass...

Yep, seen this.

Also, each iteration saying "ok, all problems are now addressed, the check should be fine, but running it just in case" (generates even more build errors than before). Rinse and repeat until my token quota is exhausted and I just code the good old fashioned way, no skin off my back. And I'm doing a 'good job' with utilization, despite having burned most of my quota on a failure that got thrown away.

Which is a stupid mindset.

"Go forth and burn tokens and your performance will be measured on that"

Looks like I'm going to make a for to ask for a for every word in /usr/share/dict/words. Look at all the tokens I burned.

It doesn't reflect upon business value, performance, or education.

It's even worse than the disastrous lines of code metric.

Their problem is they have no idea what to expect, so to signal affinity to hype, they just measure tokens.

Which is insane, as the OS doesn't have any way to authoritatively measure the user's age and so they have to be 'honor system' where the age is whatever the user says the age is, or require some online account with identity validation, which is what facebook tries to do anyway.