Neither the OP nor you give a reason for why that's bad. I want my child to have all possible advantages in life. I'm sure most people want that. Why shouldn't we select for that? I'm interested in hearing an argument that doesn't go into anti-abortion territory.

There are a few reasons why it could be bad:

Access to the tech is probably unequal if it's done privately, which leads to polarization of society where rich people get even more opportunities than poor people. If you want equality of opportunity and an approximately meritocratic society then building a system to prejudice outcomes before kids are even born isn't ideal (although money and education already does this to an extent, those can be countered a bit by government policy; literally growing humans with genetic advantages can't.)

There's a world of potential for choosing foetuses based on criteria that are ethically catastrophic (no girls, no people who are 'impure', etc). You can argue that it's still parental choice even if the parents are terrible people, but normalizing the tech could be a disaster if a future fascist government gets into power. Imagine if the choice was removed from the parents and taken over by the state.

The foetus doesn't get a choice. This is straying very close to anti-abortion rhetoric admittedly, but if you believe that people should get a say in the outcome of their life, then aborting pregnancies based on a possible outcome that might not manifest for decades is very questionable. A baby that gets terminated because current medicine can't stop an aggressive cancer is having the opportunity to wait for medicine to improve taken away from them. Even ignoring the abortion side of things, you can question whether it's right to make that decision on their behalf.

It's an anti-reproductive rights argument. You have to first accept the premise that a fetus is a person. Once you've done that, then the premise that a fetus is a person seems obvious.

Why not? Minecraft is the second most selling game of all time and comes with a freely distributable and hostable multiplayer component. How would this legislation have stopped that from happening?

>So now what, you need to show accounts to follow first

Youtube won't show you anything at all if you have a new account with watch history turned off. It says something like "turn on watch history and watch videos so we can recommend some for you".

The slop machine is stupidly easy to use. Recently switched jobs and got to use Claude Code for the first time. Literally just talk to it. There's nothing to learn.

How so? We already have digital ID in Norway. How does providing that information to American corporations further Norway's surveillance goals?

You review code not to verify the actual output of the code, but the code itself. For bugs, for maintainability. Commit hygiene is part of that.

Have you considered just doing hyposensibilization therapy? No reason to go the way of surgery before trying that. Worked wonders for me and my array of allergies, dust mites among them.

(one who recommended surgery here)

I tried hyposensibilization therapy, and while it worked for seasonal birch pollen issues, it didn't work for dust mites, oral allergies, and chronically stuffed sinuses.

Prevent pasting comments. Implement a naive check for time spent typing the comment, and shadowban posts that don't pass the criteria. Add a 1 minute wait and captcha for posting.

That'd drastically reduce the amount of low effort posts, both human-written and generated.

Preventing pasting would drastically reduce how often people cite their sources; no one wants to hand copy a long url.

I've been working on this tool to address this same issue in other communities: https://www.ityped.it/

It's certainly not perfect, but similar to what you mention.

p: https://www.ityped.it/p/WIiTYfdxQ5ww

Have the output of the LLM sent to a headless browser that "types" and submits the comment as necessary, with some randomness added for authenticity.

Or, since this would need to be done in javascript, just block or rewrite the javascript and fake the output in the sent request.

Simplistic solutions like this stopped being meaningful decades ago.

Well, the map obviously does a lot of extrapolation. Look at Norway, for example. The bigger cities pollute the air in a 50km radius? In a country where heating is primarily electric? When Berlin and Paris don't seem to affect the air quality 20km away, despite having ten times the population?

Which branch your work was done on is noise, not signal. There is absolutely zero signal lost by rebasing, and it prunes a lot of noise. If your branch somehow carries information, that information should be in your commit message.

I disagree, without this info, I can't easily tell if any commit is part of a feature or is a simple hotfix. I need to rely on the commiter to include the info in the commit message, which is almost always not the case.

But you are still relying on them to name the branch in such a way it encodes that info. It is unclear why this is superior to messages in commits.

It's worse than that: the branch name is lost after a merge. That "merge branch xyz" is simply the default commit message. So it doesn't matter what you do, commit messages are all you have!

Nothing stops you from doing both renade and merge commits.

Except perhaps crappy gui options in GitHub. I really wish they added that option as a button.