I'm not able to see the current release-please PR and the last one broke during release creation so aborted the deploy. Hoping today goes better, but limited expectations after yesterday and may be deploying manualy.
I'm curious how Azure DevOps reliability has been for comparison. My current job is managing stories in DevOps with SCC in GitHub ent. While I like Github slightly more, have been curious about the decision.
We use Azure DevOps at work for few things. It's been pretty rock solid since all agents don't recommend it and it's different architecture.
It's also legacy at this point since Microsoft is pouring all resources into GitHub but for most people/companies, they could probably use Azure DevOps just fine.
Concur on the rock solid comment. We use Azure Devops with git repos, lots of pipelines using self hosted or Microsoft hosted agents.
There was an issue with Microsoft hosted agents a few months ago, but that didn't last long, and is the only issue in my memory.
If I need to do fuzzy location searches, I've thought about just matching geohash locations... even if doing multiple sets and collating them... Note: this was in consideration for something like Scylla or Dynamo.
While I appreciate the sentiment... there was something nice about the social aspects of many/most projects being on GitHub in terms of collaboration. I think there is starting to be a lot of friction for many reasons. I've been seeing more use of issues as spam, not to mention even more nefarious activities making rounds.
Corpos tend to be on Github, where community focused projects are very rapidly shifting to codeberg, which is fully open source and also has commit signing integration that actually works.
Been noticing this all day.. various workflows failing in weird ways.. strange UI issues... Literally holding off on our deployment for a day... bad enough it seems like I'm fixing a CI/CD breakage once a month or more.
It's my understanding that those are (mostly?) devices where they legitimately have reason to believe there are zero users. In particular, there's a pattern where someone will discover that Linux has a driver that hasn't actually worked for a long time, and nobody's complained, so then they remove it.
I'm not suggesting they keep it all... just ironic as a statement considering Linux is literally removing a bit lately... <= 486, the bus drivers for mice, etc.
I'm mostly okay cleaning out a lot of legacy and unsupported devices. In some ways, and for people who want to support really old hardware it may not be great, but they're most likely stuck on older versions for other reasons.
I don't think it is ironic, though; Linux isn't "Dropping support for things just because they are old", it's dropping unused things when they cause code quality problems. That's rather different than features being dropped because the vendor doesn't want to bother supporting them even though they still worked and have active users.
Feetures being dropped because nobody wants to support them is a prominent feature of free software. That's part of "no warranty". If it does bother you, you're supposed to step up to support it yourself, or pay someone to.
Okay, but that's the exact opposite of what we're discussing here? Linux, which is free software, isn't dropping features because nobody wants to support them, but because nobody's using them. Meanwhile, macOS, developed as a commercial product and with a much weaker showing of open source or even source availability, is dropping features because Apple doesn't want to support them.
> Linux, which is free software, isn't dropping features because nobody wants to support them, but because nobody's using them.
I disagree. They are dropping support because nobody is maintaining them. There may very well be people still using these features, but they haven't been motivated or aren't properly skilled to offer to maintain them going forward, and haven't motivated some other skilled person via payments.
Rather, the core difference is that Apple does not offer a way to have external people take over providing support.
If anybody would care to keep these drivers up, it would be easy to revive them as kernel modules. It's not that Linux is going to lose an upstream interface to publish events from a bus mouse.
Support for 486 is another thing, but, frankly speaking, running a modern Linux kernel on a 486 makes no sense, either form a practical or preservationist / museum perspective.
Most extant email readers support such a limited subset of CSS that nobody is likely to send emails with anything beyond very basic CSS though, unless your reader gains a ton of traction I suppose.
Most people just read within the context of a browser, and a lot of readers are using a browser engine. FWIW, this is how a lot of worms in around 1999-2000 got around is because of a few stupid security context mistakes.
You can see it a lot if you ask anything remotely political to the different AI models... in some places you can definitely see the hand-editing/overrides as well.
Hard to get around these kinds of issues and definitely leads me to avoid them for non-technical questions.
Do you have examples of this? I feel I'm able to get decent answers around politics from all the main chatbot providers, the key is in the prompting and then applying critical thinking while reading the response.
That said, there is no such thing as an objective unbiased political opinion. Chinese LLMs may have issues with events of 1989 but Western LLMs have their blindspots too.
Not off the top of my head... just on occasion I'd ask them to summarize out of curiosity. The most recent was what given people from history might select on the red vs blue button meme circulating this past week.
The differences between Claude, OpenAI and Grok can be very interesting to say the least. I feel that Grok tends to do better with recent/current events, and I find Claude a bit more balanced on historical events. Just my own take.
> That said, there is no such thing as an objective unbiased political opinion.
That depends; some things (but not many) are straightforward enough that you can derive conclusions purely from first principles reasoning.
If you walk a model like ChatGPT through that reasoning, you’ll often wind up in a spot where the model readily admits that a clear conclusion is logically entailed but it is absolutely forbidden from uttering it.
What’s more telling is how it becomes increasingly difficult to hold the model to strict first principles reasoning the closer you get to the forbidden entailment. It will smuggle in unsupported assumptions, apply asymmetric standards of evidence, strawman the position and argue against that, etc.
It requires a great deal of careful effort to point out its formal fallacies without biasing the result, and in the end, you wind up with it admitting it simply can’t say what it has proven.
I work in formal methods/verification and this is one of my usual litmus tests when a new model comes out.
I guess but that's really not what I'm asking here - the parent commenter is making a fantastical claim and I'm asking for stronger proof than "trust me bro."
> If you walk a model like ChatGPT through that reasoning, you’ll often wind up in a spot where the model readily admits that a clear conclusion is logically entailed but it is absolutely forbidden from uttering it.
It's not just politics. A while ago, as an experiment, I wrapped some teleological[^1] questions in a small story of a demon offering a slightly ambiguous bargain to a person. Then I had a lot of fun having the frontier models evaluate if the demon was "good" or "bad". ChatGPT ranked as a rancid right-wing conservative ready to burn somebody at the stake, while Opus reasoning was chill. Interestingly, both models could clearly "understand" the deal, i.e. reason about its final consequences for the trapped soul, but ChatGPT moralized lots and made about as much sense as a stubborn priest.
reply