Let's level-set on the issue: Of late, GH has suffered a continuous stream of noteworthy outages. It is hypothesized the underlying cause of the instability has been the dramatic rise in submissions from coding agents ("AI"). The open question is how (or whether) GH can get load at a manageable level, with the proposal being, 'don't immediately allocate build/compute resources against any and all submissions.'

I don't see why that is equivalent to rampant disenfranchisement in the open source community. I believe what people have in mind is closer to, "don't immediately trigger an expensive build process as soon as someone submits a pull request."

The "model" - GH effectively allowing an overload of their infra - is already broken

> How would a random kid in a 3rd world country ever get noticed enough to enter a trust circle

By submitting a quality change with a clear description, preferably with unit tests? Is that no longer considered an acceptable hurdle?

I'm sure they were in a constant struggle for survival and had to "move fast" to stay afloat, but their technology is more than a decade in the making.

If I could make a recommendation, get rid of the grid lines entirely and only have 'dots' at regular spacing. Here's what Cadence Virtuoso looks like (the most popular circuit schematic tool for integrated circuit design):

https://www.eecs.umich.edu/courses/eecs311/f09/tutorials/cad...

> Wire an NMOS transistor so that when In is 1, the output is pulled to ground (0). When In is 0, the output should be unconnected (Z).

Certainly:

(a) The nMOS has 3 connections: its drain is only connected to the output (no +Vdd supply), it's source is tied to ground, it's gate is tied to the signal input

(b) When the gate (input) is driven high, the nMOS transistor turns "on," connecting the output to the source (which is grounded). This acts as a "pull-down network"

(c) When the gate is driven low, the nMOS turns "off," leaving no connection to the output. This is equivalent to a "high-impedance" / "unconnected" / "Z" output

Fails 1/2 tests

(Edit) - I thought the light grey, thick line on the background grid was a wire from "input" to the transistor's gate. It is not. You need to explicitly add a wire from "input" to gate :\

(In 1991, the United States relied on the F-117 Nighthawk to penetrate Baghdad and launch salvos against radar and SAM sites. Simultaneously, Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired against similar communication and defense sites. In this war with Iran, the F-35 and B-2 have been used for stealth missions).

An F-15 being shot down in Iran after weeks of strategic bombing of their anti-air defense systems is not a good sign.

> passing tests, not for correctness. It hard-codes values to satisfy

> the test suite. It will not generalize.

This is one of the pain points I am suffering at work: workers ask coding agents to generate some code, and then to generate test coverage for the code. The LLM happily churns out unit tests which are simply reinforcing the existing behaviour of the code. At no point does anyone stop and ask whether the generated code implements the desired functional behaviour for the system ("business logic").

The icing on the cake is that LLMs are producing so much code that humans are just rubber stamping all of it. Off to merge and build it goes.

I have no constructive recommendations; I feel the industry will keep their foot on the pedal until something catastrophic happens.

How are you concluding that? The only way I can see that could be true is if the bottom 50% has shifted their meagre savings to spending in an effort to stay afloat.

I find this to be dubious because the bottom 50% was never saving much at all in the first place. For context, the median income across planet earth is $850 USD _per year._ There's not a lot of room at the bottom for savings.

LLMs aren't a "layer of abstraction."

99% of people writing in assembly don't have to drop down into manual cobbling of machine code. People who write in C rarely drop into assembly. Java developers typically treat the JVM as "the computer." In the OSI network stack, developers writing at level 7 (application layer) almost never drop to level 5 (session layer), and virtually no one even bothers to understand the magic at layers 1 & 2. These all represent successful, effective abstractions for developers.

In contrast, unless you believe 99% of "software development" is about to be replaced with "vibe coding", it's off the mark to describe LLMs as a new layer of abstraction.

Your umbrance is with Synology, not Apple.

Apple raised security default configurations in Tahoe. That led to a config breakage with NAS devices which rely on relaxed security configurations.

I agree Apple should publish a technical note / changelog of config changes such as this one, but Apple has never implied to users they'd carry a support burden for any/all third-party hardware vendors. To the contrary, they've notified users that you're meant to consult with your NAS vendor for configuration steps:

> Check the documentation of your NAS device for help setting it up for use with Time Machine

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102423

> Time Machine backup to NAS devices over Apple Filing Protocol (AFP) is not recommended and won't be supported in a future version of macOS.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102423

Mounting an SMB share on a Synology NAS to use as a Time Machine backup target is not what most users would consider "consumer technology."

Apple should document such changes, but, looking at the post title, you'd think they were silently corrupting data during restoration.

The world's greatest spy agency at work.

- Could get expensive flying a technician to every household to upgrade hardware in the racks

- Probably don't want everyone at home having physical access to storage devices

- Massive theft risk

- Homeowner's insurance would probably be irked

> Phase 1 (Courtship, 2010-2014): TSMC needed Apple for legitimacy

TSMC was already the world's largest pure-play foundry long before Apple walked through the door, controlling more than 50% of market revenue. Although vertically-integrated microprocessor businesses had better-performing processes (Intel, AMD/IBM with PD-SOI), TSMC was head of the pack in the foundry world (competitors: UMC, Chartered, SMIC, etc).

> What if Apple chose Intel in 2014?

How would they have done that? Intel didn't even offer a foundry service at that time, and it would have taken years for Intel to adapt to a foundry model (one which publishes a "process design kit" for use by industry-standard EDA software to design and simulate circuits).