It never really took off. I think because computers already require users to read and type Latin letters in lots of other situations, and it's not that hard to learn what a few keywords mean, so you might as well stick with the English keywords everyone else is using.

Every time I check this comment section, this sentence jumps out at me again. You "had to" ask an LLM. You "had to".

People haven't noticed because the software industry was already mostly unoriginal slop, even prior to LLMs, and people are good at ignoring unoriginal slop.

It's possible to use a multiplier like "10x" or "5x" as a verb like that, but the object has to be the thing being increased, like "productivity" or "sales". And it's usually best to put a word like "the" or "your" in there to avoid confusing it with the case where you're using 10x as an adjective (like in "10x developer" or "10x growth"). So there are a lot of articles and books and stuff with titles like "how to 10x your wealth" and that's fine, but "AI can 10x developers" both sounds kind of wrong and implies that the AI is hiring more developers onto your team.

I'm not sure if it's real or not, but the Internet Archive has a listing claiming to be the dump from May 2022: https://archive.org/details/wikipedia_en_all_maxi_2022-05

That's why they're cataloging specific traits that are common in AI-generated text, and only deleting if it either contains very obvious indicators that could never legitimately appear in a real article ("Absolutely! Here is an article written in the style of Wikipedia:") or violates other policies (like missing or incorrect citations).

> in july, we [Adafruit] told sparkfun they needed to get their house in order. for years, sparkfun's leadership ignored specific behavior from leadership (and employees, now former... they had created and promoted hate sites, photoshopped images, and harassment targeting limor, me, and others at adafruit. this was done on company time, shared, promoted. this was reported to them. it was documented and ignored. that was the big issue i wanted them to get some hr training on, or _something_

> months later in 2025, the same individual resurfaced and re-promoted it with what appears to be nate's blessing at the time. we again told sparkfun to deal with this. instead of addressing the behavior, sparkfun’s response was to “ban” adafruit from purchasing teensy by invoking a vague, secret set of rules that neither we nor paul (the creator of teensy) were allowed to see.

> this is not a one-off. nate (the founder of sparkfun) has done this before. anyone who has worked with him long enough knows this is how conflict is handled: deflect, escalate, and try to punish rather than deal with the underlying conduct.

It seems to work in this context, at least on Gemini's "Fast" model: https://gemini.google.com/share/7a78bf00b410

Regardless of whether you use JSX or createElement, you can't just call MyComponent({ attr: “yes” }) directly, is the main point.

   {jsx(MyComponent, { attr: "yes" })

> The FLS is not intended to be used as the normative specification of the Rust language