One issue is that issues tend to be monotonically increasing numbers, and references to old issues vs. new issues get confusing over time.

This is a fascinating idea. Is this something anyone is working on?

But it will change participant behavior. Most attendees work very hard to reduce the amount of trash they generate at a burn, period. This is why people bring reusable cups and plates and silverware, etc. If you provide trash services, people will be more willing to bring trash - after all, it's easy to dispose of. And this violates the LNT principle.

My sense is that this is sort of accurate, but more likely it's a result of two things:

1. LLMs are still next-token predictors, and they are trained on texts of humans, which mostly collaborate. Staying on topic is more likely than diverging into a new idea.

2. LLMs are trained via RLHF which involves human feedback. Humans probably do prefer agreeable LLMs, which causes reinforcement at this stage.

So yes, kinda. But I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as "the researchers found humans prefer agreeableness and programmed it in."

My experience with this has been that it front-loads a lot of the LLM interactions, which can be exhausting without a reward (i.e. output.) And then, when I get the output, it's so large as to be hard to review/grok.

In other words, it feels a bit like when my coworker delivers me a month's worth of work in a single PR.

Surely you're not getting scammed by sellers with lots of reputational history?

I actually am more nervous as a seller, as their buyer protection almost always sides with buyers, at least in the US (and the fee is astronomical.)

The best part is eBay works exactly the same as 10 years ago, as far as I can tell.

They offer grants for "Using AI tools and platforms to more efficiently build movements and resist oppression" in addition to many other things.

A few years ago we did "no mow May." The grass is taller now than it was at the end of May then. A quick Google says average L/H for Detroit is 40/50 in April. It's been significantly warmer than that with many days in the 60s and 70s.

Are you from Michigan or did you move here recently? Or perhaps you live further North?

> In the v12 release of Forgejo (fixed in v12.0.1) there have been breaking changes that impact third-party authentication sources that use Forgejo as a provider. If you have been affected, please help us assessing the impact ...

> That mistake was made in the past (#8634), where there was still a lot of usages of a old and announced deprecated method (and even with quite some effort there is).

It was a related, but separate issue, which is perhaps best-described in this upstream issue: https://github.com/python-social-auth/social-core/issues/121...

The "plain" setting jvoison wants to remove is described here: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/218554

I do agree with the maintainer that a discussion is warranted before removing this setting. But I also wouldn't personally have closed the PR while waiting for said discussion to occur - and the maintainer could have created a discussion themselves. They are signaling they don't want this change, full stop.