The content is rendered unreadable by the LLMs sentence construction. Secondly, it's insulting. If you didn't care enough to write it, why should I care enough to read it?
I saw the this post. Wasn't it a capture of something that actually happened? So it just described a real story. I can doubt the authenticity of all of it whether it's really true or not. but the content itself was interesting enough.
What I don't understand is this: 'Show sincerity'—that is, a human value. If it were AI-generated, stitched-together false content, I'd understand, but I see quite a few interesting points.
Whenever I see things like this, I always think of Sturgeon's law: 90% is bad, and only 10% is interesting. I get that most AI-generated content is AI slop. But even back when only humans could write, there were plenty of clickbait articles.
I agree that GEN AI spam content is generally bad, and I also agree that some of it may lack effort. But honestly, I'm not sure this content is completely meaningless.
Regardless of the packaging, if the content inside is interesting and valuable enough, I think that's what matters. I guess we just see things quite differently.
So what I'm saying is, I don't agree with the idea that he didn't care at all.
You don't see how adding functionality that requires writing to the database rather than just reading from a cache could "drastically increase database load"?
If you couldn't be bothered to write it yourself, why should I read it? The same goes for the overly-complex components that express the same idea over and over again, but somehow without adding any clarity.
The wheel you have to spin to have a chance of seeing a new paragraph is so uniquely aggravating it almost feels satirical, like those overcomplicated volume slider UI concepts people were making a while ago. [0]
Nobody cares about the DMCA guardrails and they are never meaningfully enforced. Case in point, Anthropic DMCAing thousands of repositories that simply mentioned the word "claude".
How is that worse? Leaving it open signals to anyone searching about it that's it's still an issue of concern. It will show up in filters for active bugs, etc. Closing it without fixing it just obfuscates the situation. It costs nothing (except pride?) to leave "Issues (1)" if there is indeed an Issue.
To some people "open" means "not fixed" whereas to others it means "more work planned". I've worked on projects with both interpretations and it's fine as long as everyone is on the same page.
> It costs nothing (except pride?) to leave "Issues (1)" if there is indeed an Issue.
In our case we omit bugs we couldn't reproduce from the issues list due to practicality, not pride -- our software has tens of thousands of unreproducible bugs and having them show up in reports would drown out planned work.
And it's not like anyone deleted or locked the unreproducible bugs, they are either tracked as "open but unreproducible" or "closed because unreproducible". Either way they're still in the database in case more information comes along, but still filtered out of the vast majority of dashboards.
Recent Wikipedia articles are kind of an oxymoron; Wikipedia by design is meant to be a tertiary source, downstream of both news media but also mainstream scholarship. The problem is that it's "an encyclopaedia anyone can edit" — and that inherently means a rush to create or update articles when news outlets publish something novel.
I find the source collating of Wikipedia helpful for recent events. That's when you're going to get most editor interest to improve the page and readers to consume it.
> In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.
There clearly is editor and reader interest in making decent quality articles on major current events. Yes they may contain errors that the history book on topic won't contain, but I still think it's worth having. Just mind the things to avoid listed in WP:NOTNEWS and I think we will be fine
And I don't think everything will ever be covered in a book. There is not an infinite amount of scholars studying every random significant event. And those will probably use the same news articles as one of their sources anyway.
reply