Master of Applied Cuntery, Level 7 Misanthrope, and Social Injustice Warrior
Invest in debugging and code review capabilities: With 45% of developers reporting increased debugging time for AI code, organizations need stronger code review processes. They need debugging tools specifically designed for AI-generated solutions.
Or, maybe, don’t use tools that generate garbage code.
At this point I assume ignorance and incompetence of everybody talking about benefits of “AI” for software development.
I’ll quote myself from some time ago:
The entire article is based on the flawed premise, that “AI” would improve the performance of developers. From my daily observation the only people increasing their throughput with “AI” are inexperienced and/or bad developers. So, create terrible code faster with “AI”. Suggestions by copilot are >95% garbage (even for trivial stuff) just slowing me down in writing proper code (obviously I disabled it precisely for that reason). And I spend more time on PRs to filter out the “AI” garbage inserted by juniors and idiots. “AI” is killing the productivity of the best developers even if they don’t use it themselves, decreases code quality leading to more bugs (more time wasted) and reducing maintainability (more time wasted). At this point I assume ignorance and incompetence of everybody talking about benefits of “AI” for software development. Oh, you have 15 years of experience in the field and “AI” has improved your workflow? You sucked at what you’ve been doing for 15 years and “AI” increases the damage you are doing which later has to be fixed by people who are more competent.
Then again, there’s not much point to super long passwords. They’ll be turned into hashes, commonly of 128, 196, or 256 bits length. When brute forcing, by a certain length, it’s pretty much guaranteed there’s a shorter combination computing to the same hash. And an attacker doesn’t need your password, just some password that computes to the same hash. With 256 bit hashes a password with 1000 characters isn’t more secure than one with 15 in any meaningful way.
The unix philosophy is about making highly reusable and pluggable tools which is the exact opposite of what OP is asking for.
An example would be a REST API with a few endpoints where the database operations are handled directly in the route handlers uniquely for that specific task.
That’s a prime example for untestable code (not testable with unit tests/without IO). That might be fine for a tiny experiment, but I’d advise against it for projects of any size, even private ones. Always use a model like MVC, MVVM, three layers (data, business, user) …
I feel like we should have an in depth talk to better understand the problems you’re facing and the line of thinking that motivates your initial request. Unfortunately I currently do not have the time for that. The best I can do now, with the best of intentions, is to advise you to read literature about software development. The trouble is, that I’m not sure what to suggest, because I think there’s nothing that fits your premise. Maybe read about library development/reusable code so you better understand what not to make reusable by comparison? So maybe “Reusable Software: The Base Object-oriented Component Libraries” by Bertrand Myer or “Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models” by Martin Fowler. Though, both books are more on the old-fashioned side and I wouldn’t recommend them if you’re not an avid reader and (former) student of computer science.
Before I jump to “that’s a really bad idea” with my 20+ years of experience: why?
I mean, sure, don’t implement functionality you don’t need, but making code not reusable intentionally? Why?
I don’t want to fuck Rowling.
Re sauce:
I can’t browse through the brain rot 😢
You’re not entirely incorrect. But, KDE is better.
When using open source drivers offloading should be automatic depending on demand. You can make it explicit with DRI_PRIME=0 or DRI_PRIME=1. You’ll have to check which is which.
Two more things that came to mind. If you want to use another desktop environment than gnome (default), you should be aware of spins: https://fedoraproject.org/spins/
Spins work against the same repositories, they just come with other sets of packages preinstalled.
Also, you said you’re using amd gpu. Fedora has the drivers for that out of the box. But due to fedora’s strict FOSS policy, some hardware acceleration features are stripped out of the amd driver. I mentioned you can get the unstripped drivers from rpmfusion. That is detailed here: https://rpmfusion.org/Howto/Multimedia
The relevant bit being this:
sudo dnf swap mesa-va-drivers mesa-va-drivers-freeworld
sudo dnf swap mesa-vdpau-drivers mesa-vdpau-drivers-freeworld
Those packages work together with the drivers from the official repos. They can get out of sync. That never happened to me, yet. But if an update mentions some conflict with mesa-*, just don’t do that update until that conflict disappears. If you ever run into the issue you can also undo the last update with the dnf history commands.
Enable rpmfusion for media codecs and things like libdvdcss or unrestricted mesa drivers: https://rpmfusion.org/Configuration
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/installing-plugins-for-playing-movies-and-music/
Fedora comes out of the box with a curated flatpak repo. You might want to replace that with flathub: https://flatpak.org/setup/Fedora
Imho, there’s no reason not to enable disk encryption for root. Luks configuration during setup is very straightforward.
If you don’t have nvidia graphics, enable uefi and secure boot (no legacy options). Fedora works well with it out of the box.
Don’t know, don’t really care. It’s just fake internet points.
Say what you will, but that was an economically viable route to take. I’m still in love with TTD and RCT2.