honestly i feel the same way and i can't quite put into words why. I guess if I had to -- I think it's because I know not all AI generated stuff is equally created and that some people are terrible at prompting/or don't even proofread the stuff that's outputted, so I have this internal barometer that screams "you're likely wasting your time reading this" and so I just learned to avoid it entirely. Which is sad, because clearly now a ton of stuff is AI generated, so I barely read anything, _especially_ if I see any signals like "it's not just this, it's that"
I think people are being extreme pedants at best, disingenuous at worst. I think your analogy is clear, and the people that can't connect because they don't understand swimming is in the minority.
Mitchell Hashimoto did the same thing with Ghostty and I respect the decision. AI assistance is okay but writing slop with little to no effort to understand it simply to get a badge that you've contributed to OSS is a waste of time for everyone.
i played CS competitively and the cheating was horrendous. if i had to put a number to it, i would guess that 50% were cheating in some form simply because it wasn't very difficult. I would ultimately be relying on checking the number of digits in your Steam ID to tell whether this account was fresh (higher probability that you bought a new one and were cheating). I think the anon matchmaking is the horrible part, not the anti cheat software.
i disagree. Faceit and others have really done a great job. Riot's anticheat is also fairly effective. Anyway, it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. If it's casual gameplay, then who cares (although I wouldn't want to play in a server with cheaters even casually). But if you have ranks and a competitive scene, then anticheat is crucial
Agree with this. It's kind of like dating. No such thing as a 4.5/5 human since it's way too subjective and the enumeration of hard skills/soft skills is too high. Sometimes a fit can be an unspoken thing. You'll probably end up wasting a ton of time trying to figure out this magical algo and likely end up nowhere with it. Just my 2c
> a good fit for terrible staff, have terrible business practices
I think generally the people that end up choosing terrible staff that perpetuate terrible business practices are probably pretty terrible executives/founders themselves. Talent generally attracts talent in some way. There's really almost no situations where someone really fantastic would even _want_ to work for a bad company barring huge pay, or a rare moment of desperation due to life circumstances
