It wasn't clear to me it was _your_ project nor who pirated it. I was under the impression it was a well known scandal from your original, unedited comment.

Apologies if my comment sounded hostile; I was just asking for a clarification/more information on it.

Not all of the readers of your comment have the appropriate context and know what you're talking about. I certainly don't.

If your events are regular, then you don't need to do the research each time either; and it becomes maybe an extra five or ten minutes.

In this thread a speaker of the party is quoted as talking about people who had Swedish passports i.e. citizens.

Would you not see it as ethically bad to split the citizens into "true" citizens who can't have their citizenship stripped and second tier citizens who can?

And if the country only serves the former...

Ask yourself the following questions.

1. Who decides whether you don't belong into Swedish culture?

2. Do the requirements change?

3. How many generations removed before your rights aren't conditional?

I guess it must have been dependent on the school then?

It was useful - I'm quite sure I wouldn't have gotten any exposure to those subjects without it.

To be clear; I don't really understand the law around this - my own country is based on case law which means that even if I wanted to open source some of my reverse engineered games (I have a few private partial implementations of some old defunct game engines in-progress), the distinct lack of prior cases means, sadly, it's prudent not to release them at all while the companies are still active.

I'm not talking about extra feature s; I'm talking about for the same single feature the code is either convoulted because the algorithm is overly complicated or the abstractions are just wrong for the domain.

The PRs typically are already focused in that they address a single feature; or at least a single "usable" feature in a complex system which necessarily has a lot of connected parts and behaviors.

> then the tool is probably not fit for the job.

Perhaps; but with an LLM I haven't found which jobs it _does_ work for and which it doesn't. I already use planning mode extensively; and capture the major points, but then it makes a stupid decision mid implementation and just starts churning.

Reviewing vibe-coded PRs and features has been utterly exhausting over the past few months.

I work on critical, mature software - a small change in behaviour can mean data loss or non-compliance with regulations for our customers. The biggest problem with AI PRs is the sheer amount of churn, extra code and lack of intent with the PRs it generates.

The only way I can describe the latter is that an AI-only PR feels to me like a painting where everything is high detail - and you have to comb over each part before you understand why it's there because so much is superfluous. A well written human PR on the other hand, is painted such that your eye naturally follows the thought process of the author so you can just nod along during the review, as if the solution was obvious.

Also when I'm _using_ the agent; at least 50 percent of my time is spent telling it to stop with it's approach so it doesn't go down a useless rabbit hole and waste tokens.

Our team was doing a similar task to move between test frameworks, and I had to do a git diff of hundreds of thousands of lines to try and work out where a test had disappeared to.

A change in the sys calls that are used. That's pretty sensitive in general I think; I can see if it were introduced by an LLM why people would be upset if they experienced data loss from it.

These writing jobs in print media have mostly disappeared in the UK. It's certainly harder to make a living as a writer today than it was in the 70's and 80's.