It will be a bummer to see how many downvotes I will get for saying this, but it’s 100% true: chromium is the most secure browser engine followed by webkit.
I don’t know what implementation transmits the least information, but in terms of number of known exploitable vulnerabilities there’s little question.
Can you articulate why?
Yeah that’s the problem: accepting that there is some other failure happening, broadly defined as a lack of “q” factor, forces people to grapple with the fact that open source has historically been the purview of the bad programmers self promoting their learning projects.
There are cases to the contrary of course and that’s not the rule, but no one cared about these behaviors until now and their care is all focused on ai use as opposed to the behaviors of the programmer in question.
Your response is a perfect example: even though you’re declaring what the person is responsible for you can’t articulate what the consequences of that responsibility are.
I’m not picking on you either, this has been a problem for thirty years, oh you just graduated? Grind away at the gnu tools or some open source stuff so you have something to point at in interviews. Youre reimplementing an x feature in windows having finished a book on c++? Throw it up on sourceforge.
Since speaking directly to the proposed change didn’t do much, here’s an alternative to “banning ai slop”:
Ban the thing that’s happening. If there are too many “low effort” posts, ban low effort posting. If there are too many posts about non open source packages, ban posting about non open source software. If you really don’t want people self promoting with open source (a thing they’ve been doing for decades!) then ban self promotion.
The problem with all the things I just suggested is that they require serious consideration on the part of a moderator. “Is this post too low effort?”, “is this person promoting themselves in a way the community doesnt want?” and “is this post even about open source?” Are questions that require moderator effort. “Was the repo signed by Claude?” Takes no effort to answer.
Of course kicking kids out of the sandbox for not playing right kind of defeats the purpose of a sandbox and placing unnecessarily high barriers to entry on the commons defeats the purpose of a commons but what the hell do I know…
Because someone will just make c/realopensource and more people will post there than here.
You’re describing a situation where fewer people adopt ai tools for programming or the adoption rate stays the same. That seems unrealistic. I guess you could also be describing a situation where lots of lemmy users start programming and avoid this community because of its ai ban. That seems like it would be bad though, surely you don’t want a bad thing to happen…
Basing the path of a community on what will be tolerated or even boosted by its most vocal members is not necessarily the best choice.
A better path is probably to make a dedicated hand coding community and use that instead of hijacking the extant open source community.
I honestly see it the opposite way. Graphene is doing their level best to turn Android into iOS with none of the benefits.
They’re doing all the stuff apple did for hardware except they can’t make their own so they’re chasing stuff with the security features of iphones, they’re rewriting the system apps to take advantage of those features (like apple did) but they don’t have the benefit of a cloud data system or oversight of their app marketplace.
I use graphene and ios daily. It’s really interesting how they’re going about all this.
If you adopt a hardline anti ai stance you will just have to reverse it or become an unused backwater.
E: tagging is also stupid because a tag is self imposed and doesn’t discriminate between a person who is careful or otherwise.
Low dynamic range