Shouldn't compilers (in this case LLVM) cover such CPU bugs with flags? So users can commit to either evading CPU bugs or not.

It'd also be a good entry-point and overview of what CPU bugs are out there. Without it, how are you supposed to know about and evaluate them?

Posts usually show a summary through the website provided metadata, though, but this website doesn't.

Dunno if that's what the original commenter was thinking of, though.

is one of the things LLMs excel at

Early on, one time, I misplaced my right hand and typed my sentence with keyboard-layout-offset characters. I was very surprised it answered correctly to a seemingly gibberish prompt.

?utm_source=chatgpt.com on "W4 Games" link. Did they summarize or generate through chatgpt and copied from chatgpt? It certainly doesn't seem like deliberately designed link handling.

Linksource tracking/marketing chatgptcom doesn't make sense to me on other websites. But it's interesting that it effectively produces distributed chatgpt-source links.

I travel a lot… across the codebase.

I could read and say david. What about this one? Davtwod doesn't really roll from the tongue…

Anything is better than nothing.

Go and Zig are serious languages. Go is especially established and has a big ecosystem and capabilities. You could stick with Go forever if you don't want to expand afterwards.

Starting 'simpler' is better because it gives you successes. It keeps you going.

No

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/1872#issuecomment-958943903

Changing the username will break many aspects of federation. For other instances you will look like a completely new user, so you wont be able to edit or delete any old posts/comments. I really dont think its worth all the trouble when you can simply create a new account.

The developer used AI and it introduced bugs and that was bad for people.

Was it the AI that introduced bugs, or them, while working with AI there or in other parts?
Would the bugs not have occurred if they made the changes without AI?
Would they have made any changes without AI? Would we be better off without changes for security robustness?

You make it sound like a direct correlation. Having read their response, that seems like an assumption without reasonable foundation.

Changes always have a risk of introducing bugs.
I'm no friend of using AI without the necessariy expertise, but from their response, they seem to have taken a very thorough, reasonable approach, and they seem to have the expertise to do so.

I don't know the degree to that, but bugs do happen occasionally either way as long as there are changes. In the article, they explain why the changes are necessary. Prioritizing security over no-change-stability seems reasonable and warranted.