Someone made a mistake, owned up to it and fixed it. No one is entitled to more than that for a free software.
Anyone with a bit of software experience knows it’s easy to miss things when you are doing your own tasks + context switching + giving reviews. We should exercise kindness and empathy instead of projecting evil intentions.
Even if I accepted the premise that this is too stupid to be evil, that doesn't change the fact that this would be extremely easy to test for. The fact that they considered it important enough to get this feature implemented without proper testing says plenty about their incentives.
They might not have intentionally done this (although it's honestly not clear), but they definitely didn't care enough to prevent it because it wouldn't have been hard at all. That's my point here; which bugs slip through and which don't implicitly conveys what their priorities are. I don't think it's particularly hard to infer what story this bug tells.
First comment does not sound constructive - are you interested in my opinion on (n)vim?
I am not a legal, so can't comment on legal things. However, I have already responded elsewhere here that this feature has nothing to do with licensing or ownership and was added for those that want the attribution. I understand the desire to see anything Microsoft as bad and evil, but we are really just trying to make a better experience.
Perhaps next time you should consult with legal before asserting co-authorship on end users’ code. The appended comment was not “edited with VS code” or “sent from VS code”, it was “co-authored by Copilot”. You do understand that there are legal implications to claims of authorship, right?
Comments like this are why developers don’t engage directly. The first link is “just asking questions” and implying that the project is rotten. He’s not being “creative” he’s just not engaging in bait.
They’ve done a commendable job responding. Please show some respect when people put themselves in vulnerable situations, otherwise the whole “devs respond on HN” thing will cease to happen.
I noticed you only respond to comments that are positive (or neutral). The majority (and the most insightful) comments here are negative, but you seem to ignore them.
Other people aren’t your slaves. You don’t get to demand they respond immediately, and this Reddit-like mindset needs to die. HN is a place where we often can actually get devs from companies responding directly and listening to feedback, and this hostility is looked at by all the other devs from those similar companies and remembered when it’ll be their turn.
Stop making HN a worse place for everyone by being unnecessarily hostile. (and this comment is only mildly directed at you but rather at a bunch of people in this thread)
They said three times "ask me anything" and then didn't respond to a single question. Stop making HN wose by comparing someone dodging accountability to slavery.
My favorite story from the book. Working on hardware, the engineers would often have problems where the whole machine would crash because some signal happend one nanosecond too early or one microsecond too late.
Eventually one of the engineers broke. He left and never came back. He left a note on his desk reading "I am going to live on a farm in Vermont, and I will no longer deal with any unit of time shorter than a season."
That engineer didn't give up for very long, he designed a different 32-bit machine for Computervision fairly soon after, it is featured in the AMD PAL book from the early 80s.
I read it from a newspaper, or a magazine that the said engineer clarified that the reason given in the book is inaccurate. I couldn't find it right now, but the gist is: "I had different ideas with my manager, and the other company offered me a chance to lead the design of a new computer.".
Maybe a dumb question, but... I'm a Canadian who would qualify for a TN visa if I worked in the States, but don't currently have a visa or green card. On the online submission form for job openings, it always asks "Are you legally entitled to work in the US?". Am I meant to answer yes or no to that?
Unfortunately, the correct answer is No because until you have the TN, you are not legally entitled to work in the U.S. Of course, this means that you will be excluded automatically for consideration of certain jobs.
Not a lawyer but have been working in the US on a TN status for multiple employers and I would answer yes and discuss further with the recruiter or hiring manager.
TN status is conceivably something you could get without help from the employer (though even the smallest startup hired one to help me set up a package). What you need is basically proof that a company wants to hire you (offer letter), evidence that the company exists, and proof that you fall in one of the TN occupations.
Also not a lawyer, but wanted to second what jsbg said.
I've been through this process many times, and I would always say yes and then mention with the recruiter (even if I had to explain that the process was basically "asking politely for permission at the border").
The underlying question that employers really care about is "will you be legally allowed to accept a job offer without unexpected expenses or delays". Even if you file through USCIS (and not petition at the point of entry), you can (should) have an answer in 14 days and ~2k in fees, which is 1) a drop in the bucket for any hiring budget, and 2) not impactful to a hiring timeline.
Employers are subject to substantial penalties if they hire someone who is not legally permitted to work. I think they are woried about more than unexpected delays, though I admit I'm way out of my sphere of knowledge on this subject.
To be clear, I meant "unexpected delays (to work legally)". As in, waiting a year to submit, and hope for, an H1B to be issued, vs waiting 2 weeks for a TN to be approved.
No portion of my initial comment should have been interpreted to mean that employers do not do their own due diligence after actually hiring someone.
I don't know how it works, but it seems very odd that serialization/reflection wouldn't work with AOT... the information you need is there in memory either way, isn't it?
It can get really tricky: using reflection you could read a string from any input and create a generic type instantiation that never happens in the source code. How would the code for that type be present in an AOT scenario?
There are also several optimizations that can be made in AOT compiled code that are not allowed when you enable unrestricted reflection or dynamically loading code. As an example, suppose an interface is implemented by just one type in your code. If you AOT compile it, the compiler can safely assume that all calls to methods on that interface actually go to that single type implementing it, thus it can replace interface dispatches with direct calls.
You can get serialization to work, but you have to use a serialization framework that is trimming compatible. For example, to use System.Text.Json, you have to opt-in the types you want to serialize.
AA sounds like a horrible company. They had a design legacy from when their logo and identity were designed by Massimo Vignelli, but they threw it away and didn't seem to have any concept of its value. Their website has terrible design and usability. When a blogger posted an article about how bad it was, one of the designers at AA reached out anonymously and said they understood his criticisms and that they were working to make the site better. AA searched their mail servers to find that employee and fired them for... caring, I guess?
I don’t know why floats aren’t included, but any float can be easily represented by an int with same bits, or a bytestring, using the struct module to convert between them, so there are clear workarounds.
reply