(where the top guideline on [link] clearly states: "we do not accept submissions that are either outright AI-generated or conceptually similar in terms of style, verbosity, generality, scope-creep or signal-to-noise ratio")

Bigcorps re-using known names.

A worrying trend.

so yeah, not the best analogy.

But then the bug made MCAS kick in on false positives repeatedly and in a prolonged manner, causing the pilots to tire out and no longer be able to overpower the AI to take control of the plane controls.

(lay understanding, and oversimplification of a complex issue, possibly wrong, take with a huge grain of salt)

Not on by default, you have to enable it in your .nanorc (not least because you need to provide a backup folder where you want to store these backups).

Very handy. Occasionally I've deleted files accidentally or made destructive changes, and could restore a working version from the past as if I had a timemachine.

Boeing's MCAS system was also "just software". Which in principle can be "controlled", i.e. changed, updated, audited or whatnot.

But then people died precisely because pilots found themselves unable to override or "control" the systems precisely when it mattered.

If anything open source is proving to be the last bastion of hope against the trend of being mindlessly replaced by agents.

My gut is we'll have to start learning BSD soon.

What's interesting to me is that that comment (at least on this thread) was genuinely insightful though.

In the specific case of java however I don't think this applies much; the vast majority of improvements are aimed at under the hood optimisations rather than syntax. And I feel that any changes in syntax have been quite incremental, intuitive, and reasonable.

AND they stay around as preview features forever, so this may inflate the perception of features entering the language, when in fact it's the same one feature being mildly iterated on.

E.g. the main syntactical change in this version seems to be the use of primitives in switch statements, which was already discussed for a while, and is itself a meaningful change brought about by the introduction of switch expressions.

I've seen this happen a lot recently, when the page still has relatively few comments. Insightful comments are dead leaving behind trivial ones.

What's going on?

Why? This is a non-sequitur. As are the other assertions in my opinion. You can have meat based diets rich in fibre (e.g. the mediterranean diet), and you can have vegan diets completely devoid of them (e.g. living off McDonalds plantburgers for the rest of your life).

The problem is this conflating of veganism, which at its heart is an ethical movement, as a nutritional one. So designing studies that intentionally blur this line isn't doing anyone no favours.

If I see a study comparing vegan junkfood against the mediterranean diet where the vegan diet still comes on top, I'd change my tune. But the reverse scenario, i.e. comparing meat-based diets of a nature that most people would intuitively consider unhealthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the meat) against vegan diets which most people would intuitively consider healthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the veganism) provides zero useful evidence.

And if I were to make a dietary choice for ethical reasons, I would much more appreciate insights coming from impartial science over an echo chamber, academic or otherwise.

The methods say people were allocated to vegan versus "high meat consumption" foods, with participants free to choose their diets. The only restriction was you had to "try" to increase intake if losing weight, and "try" to decrease intake if gaining weight. (i.e. only isocaloric per basal rate, not across the board). Then the linked studies hint heavily that the vegan group tended towards less protein but more fibre, and roughly equal carbs (fat is not mentioned!!). Which at the very least shows the diets were not "equivalent bar for meat", let alone for "moderate" (i.e. potentially healthy) amounts of meat.

So they're not comparing "healthy wholefood vegan vs healthy wholefood meat diets". They're comparing availability and behavioural tendencies towards dietary choices when aiming for a short term vegan diet versus when aiming for a short term diet characterised by excessive amounts of meat.

I honestly don't get why they do studies like this. It's a waste of time for everyone involved. It's almost like they're only after a headline extolling veganism, rather than actually useful comparisons that could lead to real, actionable dietary insights. Really, if anything, a supported conclusion here could even be that meat diets are likely healthier given sufficient fibre supplementation.

Case in point; I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not! :D