This is going to get abused so fast, it will make your head spin.
EDIT: I just look up the highest-ranking "buy GitHub stars" page (which I will obviously not link here), and it looks like you would have to pay a little over $1000 to get the required amount of stars. So I suppose it might not get abused as easily as I thought.
On the other hand, someone with the gumption and elbow grease to abuse this process themselves could still easily do so, I'd wager.
All that being said, I still think that GitHub stars are effectively worthless, and attempting to assign value to them like this is, at best, a fool's errand.
I can imagine this will invoke Goodhart's law, increasing the amount of people shilling their AI-generated shovelware onto a Web already greatly suffering from the consequences of the plummeting cost of intelligent-sounding text generation.
Yes. It seems to be the term that stands out the most, as terms like "AI coding assistant", "agentic coding framework", etc. are too vague to really differentiate these tools.
"harness" fits pretty nicely IMO. It can be used as a single word, and it's not too semantically overloaded to be useful in this context.
This is like the third or fourth time this has happened to them.
The Manjaro team has also caught flak for a bunch of other stuff. There's a page or two our there that detail the issues, which I'm too lazy to link here.
> Going to play devil's advocate and say that they make minimal to no revenue off of their website so it being down is not a huge deal.
How much revenue they make doesn't matter if it impacts users. Prospective users need to be able to see what they are getting and download and verify ISOs from the team.
I despise ZorinOS for what they are doing in many ways that violate software licenses, but one thing they got right is charging users and being somewhat accountable to their userbase.
> TFA most commonly refers to Trifluoroacetic acid, a highly persistent, mobile "forever chemical" (PFAS) found globally in water and soil, widely used in organic chemistry as a solvent.
But surely your search engine must have given you the answer within your first three clicks, if not, perhaps you should consider a better search engine.
Don’t know about your parent, but I am certainly on of those “AI can’t make anyone more productive”.
Well, at least I would say that while being a bit hyperbolic. But folks like us who prefer to see claims by corporations trying to sell you stuff backed by behavioral research before we start taking the corporation’s word for it.
It is more like getting in the car with Stuntman Mike. The risk is not that the driver might make a mistake but that it actively turns against you and a container is not a security boundary against an adversary.
The nature of these tools is that you tell them not to jump off a cliff, so they ride the bicycle over it. Or a car. Or "you're completely right. I assumed it was possible to fly". Or...
That's old news. Now there's Plancklaw, renamed to ∅. It has no code base, no bugs, no security issues, infinitely scalable, and all the features of every other *claw.
This is going to get abused so fast, it will make your head spin.
EDIT: I just look up the highest-ranking "buy GitHub stars" page (which I will obviously not link here), and it looks like you would have to pay a little over $1000 to get the required amount of stars. So I suppose it might not get abused as easily as I thought.
On the other hand, someone with the gumption and elbow grease to abuse this process themselves could still easily do so, I'd wager.
All that being said, I still think that GitHub stars are effectively worthless, and attempting to assign value to them like this is, at best, a fool's errand.
I can imagine this will invoke Goodhart's law, increasing the amount of people shilling their AI-generated shovelware onto a Web already greatly suffering from the consequences of the plummeting cost of intelligent-sounding text generation.
reply