Register the mousemove event handler on window, then you will still get the events when the mouse moves out of the window/frame while dragging and it won't be that buggy.

Was about to comment the same. It's a common mistake/gotcha.

Possibly dumb question, but does that still hold inside p5js?

p5 is just a wrapper that adds the setup() and draw() functions, so yes

This is not the C file API, this is the POSIX file API. Doesn't standard C only define fopen() & co? In any case under Win32 this is all different.

2000 was peak except for them still having those tiny non-resizeable dialogs with long lists in them which you have to scroll horizontally and vertically. WTF? Your typical Linux DE was better at that even back then.

I don't care about anyone seeing or not seeing my unfinished hobby projects, I just immediately push to GitHub as another form of backup.

I don't care about backing up unfinished hobby projects, I just write/test until arbitrarily sharing, or if I'm completely honest, potentially abandoning it. I may not 'git init' for months, let alone make any commits or push to any remotes.

Reasoning: skip SCM 'cost' by not making commits I'd squash and ignore, anyway. The project lifetime and iteration loop are both short enough that I don't need history, bisection, or redundancy. Yet.

Point being... priorities vary. Not to make a judgement here, I just don't think the number of commits makes for a very good LLM purity test.

I literally keep this in my bash history so i can press up once and hit enter to commit: `git add *; git commit -m "changes"; git push origin main;`

I use git as backup and commit like every half an hour... but make sure to give proper commit message once a certain milestone have been reached.

Im also with the author on this on squashing all these commits into a new commit and then pushing it in one go as init commit before going public.

you should push to a private working branch- and freqently. But, when merging your changes to a central branch you should squash all the intermediate commits and just provide one commit with the asked for change.

Enshrining "end of day commits", "oh, that didn't work" mistakes, etc is not only demoralizing for the developer(s), but it makes tracing changes all but impossible.

Yeah, I don't care about that for my tiny hobby projects which are used by no one. XD

PGVectorScale claims even more. Also want to see someone verify that.

Exactly. We should always be asking these sort of questions and take these self-reported benchmarks with a grain of salt until independent sources can verify such claims rather than trusting results from the creators themselves. Otherwise it falls into biased territory.

This sort of behaviour is now absolutely rampant in the AI industry.

Vibe coders being: https://images.kinorium.com/movie/shot/129136/h280_39185160....

If I have to become a factory worker I'm going to look for another job.

On the assembly line:

"What did you used to do?"

"Programming. You?"

"I was a lawyer."

This is literally my reality

> clean-room implementation

Except its trained on all source out there, so I assume on GCC and clang. I wonder how similar the code is to either.

I'm familiar with both compilers. There's more similarity to LLVM, it even borrows some naming such as mem2reg (which doesn't really exist anymore) and GetElementPtr. But that's pretty much where things end. The rest of it is just common sense.

This is very cool!

Also means I can stop with my hobby project that was supposed to do the same. Wasn't far along and haven't worked on it in months anyway.

So I'll spend my time on another hobby project then that also solves something that is already solved 100 times over, but I don't like the other solutions (simple log monitoring including systemd and sending error emails if something is found).

What kind of AI does this use?