Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91992 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-22 20:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-09-26 14:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 203 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-22 20:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 22:39 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-23 00:25 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-23 09:41 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-23 08:50 -0700
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-26 12:50 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-23 23:11 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-23 12:43 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-09-23 14:09 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-09-23 11:55 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-23 23:00 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 01:31 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-24 10:07 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:30 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-09-24 10:39 -0300
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-26 13:02 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-26 14:51 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-27 13:29 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-27 19:39 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-11 11:37 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-11 14:56 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 09:55 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-27 11:01 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:57 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-30 08:40 -0700
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-30 20:50 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-30 20:56 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:21 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 08:04 -0700
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 00:48 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 00:32 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 00:51 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 02:02 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 09:27 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 23:21 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:34 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 02:57 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:24 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:59 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 09:02 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:16 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-03 10:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 12:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 12:55 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-09-23 19:24 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-23 18:28 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-09-23 21:04 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-09-24 07:16 +1000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-09-24 12:03 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2026-09-26 17:37 +1000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 09:53 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-27 18:56 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-28 12:52 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-28 17:21 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-28 15:56 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 03:30 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-09-29 02:20 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 03:45 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-09-29 12:36 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-29 10:51 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 18:19 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 19:38 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 23:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 18:54 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 23:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 01:14 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-30 02:04 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Abraham <chris@gerriscorp.com> - 2026-09-30 13:27 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-30 15:47 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-30 20:17 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-30 20:33 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-01 02:01 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:08 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 00:42 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-01 23:49 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:14 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 19:33 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 20:44 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:13 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 08:59 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 04:11 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-03 20:00 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 09:04 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-04 23:47 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:09 +0200
[OT] US politics (was: Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 17:16 +0100
Re: [OT] US politics (was: Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-04 18:18 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:13 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:33 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-05 02:46 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:18 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:33 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 20:42 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-05 01:24 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-05 23:20 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-06 01:44 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-06 03:56 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-07 01:45 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 08:01 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-07 03:32 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:00 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-07 18:42 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 07:45 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-08 20:23 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-08 17:24 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-08 23:59 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-09 05:00 -0500
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-08 23:44 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:36 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-14 14:21 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:57 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:58 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:33 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:56 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:28 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-08 20:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 22:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-08 17:18 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 22:21 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:48 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:46 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-09 04:21 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 18:15 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-09 11:14 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 18:27 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-08 17:14 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 22:20 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:53 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:56 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 19:32 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 20:42 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-03 03:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 02:05 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 01:59 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 09:04 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-03 19:57 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 09:02 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:11 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-03 16:09 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 09:08 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-04 10:48 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:09 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:35 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:59 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 20:33 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-05 01:09 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:03 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-05 12:51 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-05 02:45 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:33 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:13 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 19:27 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 21:32 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 02:49 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:21 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:44 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:50 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 00:40 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:03 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Abraham <chris@gerriscorp.com> - 2026-09-29 20:15 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-29 10:46 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 11:56 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 20:00 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 02:09 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-24 00:18 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 01:24 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 11:58 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:47 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 02:13 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-24 00:21 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 05:53 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-24 03:03 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-24 12:23 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:42 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-24 21:56 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-24 23:17 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 01:00 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:39 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-24 23:17 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-25 04:36 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-25 19:14 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 04:01 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-26 14:43 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 03:51 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-24 03:52 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:43 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-25 09:17 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-25 17:58 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-26 04:49 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 04:15 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-26 09:51 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 04:03 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-26 09:42 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 12:03 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 10:31 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:20 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 03:41 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-26 14:01 +0000
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 20:08 +0000 |
| Subject | More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI |
| Message-ID | <18d7bd7e3b290a97$107$2277794$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. I refer to wxMaxima: <https://github.com/wxMaxima-developers/wxmaxima/releases> The program, IMO, is one of the great accomplishments of the FOSS world and I am reluctant to find fault with the developers. It is, after all, one of my favorite and most used programs. wxMaxima is just a graphical front-end to the Maxima program and dealing with graphical toolkits can be a pain but, regardless, AI assistance should be extremely repugnant to all competent programmers. I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole nor exaggeration.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 22:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ab3038e$0$87034$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #91992 |
On Sep 22, 2026 at 1:08:46 PM MST, "Leroy H" wrote <18d7bd7e3b290a97$107$2277794$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>: > Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. I refer > to wxMaxima: > > <https://github.com/wxMaxima-developers/wxmaxima/releases> > > The program, IMO, is one of the great accomplishments of the FOSS > world and I am reluctant to find fault with the developers. It is, > after all, one of my favorite and most used programs. > > wxMaxima is just a graphical front-end to the Maxima program > and dealing with graphical toolkits can be a pain but, regardless, > AI assistance should be extremely repugnant to all competent > programmers. > > I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole > nor exaggeration. Something like 60% of all new code is touched by AI, or so I have read. Good luck. I know MY code is pretty much pure AI (with my direction). Here are examples if anyone cares (and even if they do not!) https://rpg-cb1.pages.dev/games Just fun for me and some friends. Nothing big or even well tested. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 00:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ADOdneVDQdtzyS73nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #91993 |
On 9/22/26 18:39, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On Sep 22, 2026 at 1:08:46 PM MST, "Leroy H" wrote > <18d7bd7e3b290a97$107$2277794$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>: > >> Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. I refer >> to wxMaxima: >> >> <https://github.com/wxMaxima-developers/wxmaxima/releases> >> >> The program, IMO, is one of the great accomplishments of the FOSS >> world and I am reluctant to find fault with the developers. It is, >> after all, one of my favorite and most used programs. >> >> wxMaxima is just a graphical front-end to the Maxima program >> and dealing with graphical toolkits can be a pain but, regardless, >> AI assistance should be extremely repugnant to all competent >> programmers. >> >> I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole >> nor exaggeration. > > Something like 60% of all new code is touched by AI, or so I have read. Good > luck. > > I know MY code is pretty much pure AI (with my direction). Here are examples > if anyone cares (and even if they do not!) > > https://rpg-cb1.pages.dev/games > > Just fun for me and some friends. Nothing big or even well tested. Had CHAT write me a little python-based client/server pgm. Thing is, it was really no different from any human-writ examples I'd seen online before. DID make use of it, with a few tweaks. Reports system CPU temps/use, mem and a few other things on a couple of PIs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 09:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nhhhl6FelltU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91992 |
Leroy H wrote: > Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. > > I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole > nor exaggeration. Just because the developers used AI to create/improve the software, doesn't mean that you are using AI by using their resulting software ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20260923085042.00004d48@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #92002 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:41:05 +0100 Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > > Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. > > > > I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole > > nor exaggeration. > > Just because the developers used AI to create/improve the software, > doesn't mean that you are using AI by using their resulting software It *does* however mean that you're using software maintained by people for whom understanding their own codebase is not a high priority, which does not inspire great confidence in its stability or security.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 12:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ab7bf89$0$28052$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #92033 |
Le 23-09-2026, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:41:05 +0100 > Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > >> > Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. >> > >> > I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole >> > nor exaggeration. >> >> Just because the developers used AI to create/improve the software, >> doesn't mean that you are using AI by using their resulting software > > It *does* however mean that you're using software maintained by people > for whom understanding their own codebase is not a high priority, which > does not inspire great confidence in its stability or security. This sentence is so wrong that it tells more about you than about the reality. You have feelings, it's normal, without feelings we wouldn't be human beings. But, considering your feelings are more important than others feelings is wrong. And considering than thinking should be discarded by feelings is as wrong. I knew one guy who used AI without understanding what it did. His work was done exclusively with AI, even his presentation was done with AI. And it showed because he really didn't understood what he did. It was impressive because he didn't even understood what he said and it was so obvious that when we tried to see what he said he deployed was inexistant. So it looks like this story is going on your way. But this story is only that: one story. I don't mean that using badly AI is inexistant. But you say that people are using AI only in bad ways. And that's the issue. There are a lot of ways to use AI, some bad, some good. You consider that the bad ways are the only one that exist. And that is plain wrong. The guy I knew had no added value and could be replaced by AI. But one can use AI in very good ways. And your refusal of even considering that is plain wrong. Your saying that those guys don't consider security and stability is just insulting: <https://www.anthropic.com/news/mozilla-firefox-security> Your saying that those bugs shouldn't have been taken into account because they have been discovered by AI is plain dead stupid: <https://github.com/V4bel/dirtyfrag> <https://dirtypipe.cm4all.com/> <https://copy.fail/> <https://thehackernews.com/2016/10/linux-kernel-exploit.html> <https://dailysecurityreview.com/cyber-security/cve-2026-49975-http-2-bomb-hits-nginx-apache-envoy-and-cloudflare/> You don't like AI? There is nothing wrong with that, just don't use it if you don't have to. But saying that one shouldn't have confidence in those who find good use of AI and despising them without trying to find out if they are right or wrong is just wrong. And tells more about you than about the reality. Just face it: you are old and belong to the past, so you can still keep it that way. But you guys must adapt. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 23:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Erucnbq0hJ9JCSn3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #92002 |
On 9/23/26 04:41, Andy Burns wrote: > Leroy H wrote: > >> Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. >> I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole >> nor exaggeration. > > Just because the developers used AI to create/improve the software, > doesn't mean that you are using AI by using their resulting software ... Goog "Contagion Theory". But, well, DO be a little cautious - more and more over the next years. "AI" code will become more and more human-unreadable and self-referencing until you can't TELL if evil is in there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 12:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d3ncomxej5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #91992 |
On 2026-09-22 22:08, Leroy H wrote: > Another FOSS package is now infiltrated by AI code. I refer > to wxMaxima: > > <https://github.com/wxMaxima-developers/wxmaxima/releases> > > The program, IMO, is one of the great accomplishments of the FOSS > world and I am reluctant to find fault with the developers. It is, > after all, one of my favorite and most used programs. > > wxMaxima is just a graphical front-end to the Maxima program > and dealing with graphical toolkits can be a pain but, regardless, > AI assistance should be extremely repugnant to all competent > programmers. > > I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole > nor exaggeration. > Linus Torvalds uses AI >:-P -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1190mjh$pi7k$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #92011 |
In article <d3ncomxej5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: ... >> I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole >> nor exaggeration. >Linus Torvalds uses AI >:-P Proving once again that nobody's perfect. -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4-ish lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Pedantic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 11:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87bj9ormgn.fsf@atr2.ath.cx> |
| In reply to | #91992 |
Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes:
> I would rather die than utilize AI, and that is neither hyperbole
> nor exaggeration.
Three projects I like have been ruined by vibecoding. I won't name them
because I don't want to shame the developers. One almost everyone would
know, the other two are less well-known. The first two I now use their
old versions instead of their current. The third I dropped entirely.
Computer science moves fast, and you have to keep up with it. Of course,
not all new things are well and good - the trick is knowing the
difference. And I think the writing is on the wall; AI is here to stay
and will only grow more in the coming years.
The tech side of me thinks it's neat, my ego vows never to be beaten by
a bot. LLMs let vibecoders jump ahead beyond their skill level just like
PEDs allow athletes to achieve performances they otherwise would not be
able to attain. Certainly there is a "you didn't earn it" element there.
Once we flipped switches and punched cards; we don't do that
anymore. Once most or all of the system was written in assembly
language, but now this is no longer needed (thankfully).
AI is a steamroller: you can stand off to the side if you
like. Otherwise, you get on top or you go underneath. Thus, when my new
system76 gets here I'll start learning LLM and AI (else I get left
behind). I'll never trust Google or the likes to use their stuff, and
local agents have a high bar to entry due to pricing, but that's a topic
for another time.
--
PGP Key ID: 781C A3E2 C6ED 70A6 B356 7AF5 B510 542E D460 5CAE
"The Internet should always be the Wild West!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AI-20260923235823@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #92035 |
jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> wrote or quoted: >Three projects I like have been ruined by vibecoding. If the project leaders should share this point of view, they can always go back to the last pre-AI version and start again from there, this time without vibe-coding. Otherwise, it might be more a conflict between different viewpoints of humans (the project leaders and you) about software quality. >Computer science moves fast, and you have to keep up with it. Donald Knuth is still writing his fascicles at his own chosen speed. >The tech side of me thinks it's neat, my ego vows never to be beaten by >a bot. LLMs let vibecoders jump ahead beyond their skill level just like >PEDs allow athletes to achieve performances they otherwise would not be >able to attain. Certainly there is a "you didn't earn it" element there. That might be the case in a competition with good sportsmanship, but when it comes to making money or gaining prestige with soft- ware products, it's still difficult, even with the use of AI. So everyone is choosing AI or not, depending on whether he thinks it makes him more productive or not, and you have the same freedom of choice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 01:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhjcsdFjs3nU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92048 |
On 23 Sep 2026 23:00:12 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote: > Donald Knuth is still writing his fascicles at his own chosen speed. Congratulations. Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug) is the only other person I've run into that can drop 'fascicle' into the conversation. https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Mirror-Fascicle-I-Disturbance/dp/1959403559
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 10:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nhk7irFrlekU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92048 |
Stefan Ram wrote: > If the project leaders should share this point of view, they can > always go back to the last pre-AI version and start again from there, > this time without vibe-coding. If the project users dislike AI being used, they also have the option to fork the pre-AI version, but then they'll have to put the work in to maintain (and preferably actively develop) the program ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhlc2iF26unU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92061 |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:07:38 +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > Stefan Ram wrote: > >> If the project leaders should share this point of view, they can >> always go back to the last pre-AI version and start again from >> there, >> this time without vibe-coding. > > If the project users dislike AI being used, they also have the option to > fork the pre-AI version, but then they'll have to put the work in to > maintain (and preferably actively develop) the program ... https://github.com/BryanLunduke/LCOS I had version 0.5 running in a VM for laughs. It was usable. One quirk was 'sudo shutdown now' kicked you back into a root tty shell and didn't shut it down. I had to use virt-manager to force it off. MX Linux also avoids AI features although you can use AI models on it if you wish. It is derived from Debian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 10:39 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87y0cqdaz5.fsf@safunu.org> |
| In reply to | #92048 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: [...] > Donald Knuth is still writing his fascicles at his own chosen speed. Yeah, good recall. Now, he's only able to do this because he also manages to be a rare academic of excellence, which pays all his bills.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ab7c272$0$1015$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #92048 |
Le 23-09-2026, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> a écrit : > jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> wrote or quoted: > >>Computer science moves fast, and you have to keep up with it. > > Donald Knuth is still writing his fascicles at his own chosen speed. Yes, he shouldn't have spoken for any old guy. Donald Knuth, whatever his greatness and accomplishments is old. I mean nothing bad about that. At the same time, he just doesn't look for a job nor tries to keep his one. His greatness and accomplishment allow him to do what he want the way he want. And, I don't mean it in a bad way: he will be able to do great things in his way. But a young guy looking for a first job related with computers has to know how to use AI. It's the only way to find a first job and to keep it. Here on usenet only old guys remain. So they don't know what looking for a first job in AI age is. It's not about feelings, it's about facts. Anyone can like or hate AI. But AI is there anyway and someone looking for a first job (ie: nobody here) can't avoid AI if it's related with computers. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 14:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d8e6801804a43a$922$2029764$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #92213 |
On 26 Sep 2026 13:02:42 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > > But a young guy looking for a first job related with computers has to > know how to use AI. It's the only way to find a first job and to keep > it. > Only an idiot would desire a job as a programmer (i.e. code monkey). The vast majority of "programming" being done today involves junk projects using frameworks and would never interest a serious computer scientist. Commercial programming is all about PRODUCTIVITY and that's why AI is so important. People are paid by the LOC (lines of code) that they can generate and AI can certainly boost that figure. Frameworks were also first developed as a productivity enhancer and AI is just a step up from frameworks. In a commercial context AI makes no difference. It's all garbage anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ab91a38$0$28082$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #92220 |
Le 26-09-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit : > On 26 Sep 2026 13:02:42 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > >> >> But a young guy looking for a first job related with computers has to >> know how to use AI. It's the only way to find a first job and to keep >> it. > > Only an idiot would desire a job as a programmer (i.e. code monkey). Once again, you managed to prove at the same time you are the biggest asshole living on earth and you never worked on your life. Without programmers, your computer would be useless. Instead of insulting them, you should thank them. But no, an asshole like you can't do that. You get a working Linux system for free and you can't avoid insulting people you provided it to you. That's why I said I won't help you. Because you are the worst parasite the earth has ever hosted. And as an illiterate moron you don't know what a programmer job is, you can only despise them without trying to know what they do. > The vast majority of "programming" being done today involves junk > projects using frameworks and would never interest a serious computer > scientist. You are using random words without understanding their meaning and so your sentence is meaningless. You are not a serious computer scientist, you are only dreaming to be one without the intellectual capacity required. > Commercial programming is all about PRODUCTIVITY You are right, but you don't know why. > and that's why AI is so important. It's the first time I see you acknowledging that it works. Because if AI didn't work, it wouldn't increase productivity. > People are paid by the LOC (lines of code) There are only two people on earth believing that: Musk and you. When Musk bought Twitter, he fired people based on the number of lines of code produced. Because like you he believed that it was a way to estimate the work done by programmers. But, like you, Musk knows nothing about programmers: <https://programmerhumor.io/javascript-memes/when-elon-opens-mouth-to-talk-about-software/> You are competing with Musk on spreading the shittiest things about programming. Be careful. You are wrong at a level of someone looking for a Darwin award. > In a commercial context AI makes no difference. You are contradicting yourself. Which is no surprise because you don't understand your own sentences. In a commercial context, if it's beneficial, it's used, if it's not beneficial, it's not used. Before you can answer stupid shit, I need to precise a point. I'm well aware of this website: <https://isaiprofitable.com/> and I believe what's in it is true. But, I know it's a difficult concept for you, There's a difference between investing in developing AI and investing using AI. The people investing in developing AI are doing it because when the AI bubble will explode, they will keep their advance and will start to benefit from the loosing years. The people investing in using AI are doing it because they don't want to be distanced by other companies using effectively AI. Because if AI isn't perfect and can't do anything, there are a lot of sectors in which it improves productivity. In France, we have a big moron pretending to be an international figure in AI, he's Luc Julia: <https://lucjulia.com/>, but like you he says only shit concerning AI. Like you, he believes that AI is worse every year when the opposite is true. Like you, he prefers relying on his beliefs than learning. Because he's as illiterate and obsolete as you. Be careful, you're competing on the highest stupid level about computer science the world ever produced. The next step would be a Darwin award. > It's all garbage anyway. You are the garbage. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d944c97402a4aa$68$2206534$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #92305 |
On 27 Sep 2026 13:29:28 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > > And as an illiterate moron you don't know what a programmer job is, you > can only despise them without trying to know what they do. > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! A number of years ago, I was employed as a professional programmer but I resigned (quit) in disgust. During one of the meetings, all that the other "programmers" could discuss was which framework module to drop into the project. What bullshit! None of them even knew how to actually code and that's why AI is so important to these programming deadbeats. That job was very typical of what goes on in the COMMERCIAL programming world. In the ACADEMIC world, however, things are quite different During my graduate studies at a major US university I was engaged in creating complex computer programs ex nihilo. AI would be totally useless here. > > You are using random words without understanding their meaning and so > your sentence is meaningless. You are not a serious computer scientist, > you are only dreaming to be one without the intellectual capacity > required. > You are obviously defending commercial programming and stupid AI because you yourself are a commercial "programmer" and you desperately require AI assistance. This just further proof of your idiocy. > >> People are paid by the LOC (lines of code) > > There are only two people on earth believing that: Musk and you. > No. You are just misinterpreting the concept of LOC. Productivity has to measured be in some way and LOC, or some related metric, is the usual method. Commercial programmers are paid big bucks ($$$$) and that expenditure has to be justified. > >> In a commercial context AI makes no difference. > > You are contradicting yourself. > No again. Commercial code is junk code, be it human or AI. > > Like you, he prefers relying on his > beliefs than learning. Because he's as illiterate and obsolete as you. > No yet again. YOU are the one that needs to learn, but you can't learn because learning about AI requires a comprehensive background in computer science which you do not possess. YOU are illiterate. YOU are a stupid commercial programmer that believes he is intelligent and progressive. What a joke!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 11:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6acb74fc$0$28061$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #92344 |
Le 27-09-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit : > On 27 Sep 2026 13:29:28 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > >> >> And as an illiterate moron you don't know what a programmer job is, you >> can only despise them without trying to know what they do. > > A number of years ago, I was employed as a professional programmer but > I resigned (quit) in disgust. I don't believe that. You already spoke about that: I didn't believe it at the time, I still don't believe it. > During one of the meetings, all that the other "programmers" could > discuss was which framework module to drop into the project. I don't believe in that. > What > bullshit! None of them even knew how to actually code and that's > why AI is so important to these programming deadbeats. As always, you don't understand what you are criticizing. Comparing AI and frameworks is plain dead stupid (so it suits you). You need how to program to use a framework. For AI, it's different, there are many ways to use it and some ways let you program without understanding what you are doing. > That job was very typical of what goes on in the COMMERCIAL programming > world. You have no clue about what goes on in the commercial programming world. The only thing you can do is complain about others choices. You can't work in a team because it would require the entire team to adapt to your inefficient way doing all the job when you are complaining doing nothing. > In the ACADEMIC world, however, things are quite different You don't know anything about the academic world, neither. It's obvious. > During my graduate studies at a major US university I don't believe in that neither. The story you told about your graduation changes with each message and everything you said is incompatible with the other messages. Seing the result, the most probable story is you have failed very early. > I was engaged in creating complex computer programs ex nihilo. I don't believe in that neither. Every program you provided in answers to DFS wasn't even able to compile. And each time you answered the same thing: you are a Computer Scientist, not a Monkey Programmer, so having a compiling program is well bellow your level. And each time someone found the website from which you copied/pasted it in making mistakes. So, a full complex computer program ex nihilo is well above your capabilities. > AI would be totally useless here. Once again, it's wrong. It would be totally useless to you because you miss the smartness to understand how it could help you. There are lot of ways to use AI smartly in programming, but you lack the creativity required to find out how you could use AI. For a start, each time you copied/pasted program making mistakes in your process, AI could have told you that your program can't be compiled. >> You are using random words without understanding their meaning and so >> your sentence is meaningless. You are not a serious computer scientist, >> you are only dreaming to be one without the intellectual capacity >> required. >> > > You are obviously defending commercial programming I'm not defending commercial programming, I'm saying you are speaking shit about it because you have no clue about what it is. > and stupid AI I'm not defending AI neither, I'm saying your criticizes of AI are plain dead wrong. I'm saying that AI is there and it's there to last for a long time. It's a fact, it's irrelevant to say if I like it or not. The fact that AI is there is independent with my feelings about it. I'm saying there are many ways to use AI, some are better than others. And if some jobs are lost to AI, it's because AI works. It's not because I like it. > because > you yourself are a commercial "programmer" I'm not a programmer. I've already stated that. But I work with them, so I know what is a programmer job and you obviously don't. > and you desperately require AI assistance. Well, the fact is: I don't need it. When I need to write some little scripts, it's at home, and using AI would remove all the fun of writing them. But at home if I'm slower than everyone else, it's unimportant. At work it would not be the same thing. > This just further proof of your idiocy. Which is irrelevant here. The fact that you criticize things that you don't know is unrelated with my stupidity. >>> People are paid by the LOC (lines of code) >> >> There are only two people on earth believing that: Musk and you. > > No. You are just misinterpreting the concept of LOC. > > Productivity has to measured be in some way and LOC, or some related > metric, is the usual method. > > Commercial programmers are paid big bucks ($$$$) and that expenditure > has to be justified. Yes, productivity has to be measured but LOC is not a standard way. And nobody ever heard about a contract in which the salary would be indexed on the number of line of code. It's just a stupid thing only you and Musk believe as smart. A professional programmer produce around 15 lines of code a day. It would be stupid to consider that the only part of a programmer jobs is to add lines of code which can be counted to estimate his productivity. Because some programmers produce a lot of code which need to be fixed after. Because on a new program, a lot of lines are created when on an old program, changes don't add as many lines. Because programming requires to understand what is asked, it requires to test, it requires to have feed-back. Because a more difficult task require more time and more experience so experienced programmers are put on those more difficult tasks and so produce less lines of code. Because of a lot of things you would know if you ever met a programmer. >> Like you, he prefers relying on his >> beliefs than learning. Because he's as illiterate and obsolete as you. >> > > No yet again. I just prove that I'm right. > YOU are the one that needs to learn, but you can't learn because learning > about AI requires a comprehensive background in computer science which > you do not possess. Once again, you speak about what you don't know. To use AI is some thing, to know how AI works is another thing, to see how AI can be used is another thing and to see how AI is actually used is still another thing. Each one requiring different capacities. > YOU are illiterate. YOU are a stupid commercial programmer that > believes he is intelligent and progressive. What a joke! I'm not a commercial programmer and I never said that I'm intelligent. For the progressive part, you are still confused. I'm not saying it's good and it should be used as most as possible. I'm saying a fact: it's there and I'm saying something obvious: a young guy refusing to know anything about AI will have more and more difficulties in a job requiring a computer. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web