> The very desire to fix the bug prevented me from seeing I had to fix the tool first, and made me less effective in my bug hunt

Kenneth Stanley's book "Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective" is dedicated to this phenomenon

Tragic twist: repo was entirely AI generated

media.tenor.com/oW5zO_6gu5gAAAAi/theomegaoof-emoji.gif

I find the AI agent highly intriguing and the matplotlib guy completely uninteresting. Like an the ai wrote some shit about you and you actually got upset?

If you read the articles by the matplotlib guy, he's pretty clearly not upset. But he does call out that it could do more harm to someone else.

Whether the victim is upset or not, the story here is that some clown's uncontrolled, unethical, and (hopefully?) illegal psychological experiment wasted a huge amount of an open source maintainer's time. If you benefit from open source software (which I assure you, since you've used quite a lot of it to post a comment on the orange website, you do!) this should ring some alarm bells.

He's not upset. He saw an opportunity and is currently surfing it. That is, if it's not entirely fabricated. Expect maybe 5 or 6 stories very similar to this one, or analogous, this year.

hes been blogspamming about it for the last week. not-upset people dont do that

Thank you. The guy being this upset about it is telling. The agent is in the right here and the maintainer got btfo; still going on whining about it days later

Please say this is sarcasm.

thank you thats what im talking about

finally a based take on ai

skill issue

option 3: reject the premise that they're being 100% honest

this third option seems like the most reasonable option here? the way you worded this makes it seems like there are only these two options to reach your absurd conclusion

> like thats it

> There is no gray area here

re-examine your assumptions

...did you just skip the first part where I literally preface my argument with this line?

> Assume they're being 100% honest that they genuinely believe nobody disagrees with their statement.

That's the core assumption. It's meant to give them the complete benefit of the doubt, and show that doing so means their argument is either ignorant or their perspective that opponents aren't people.

Obviously they're being dishonest little shits, but calling that out point-blank is hostile and results in blind dismissal of the toxicity of their position. Asking someone to complete the thought experiment ("They're behaving honestly, therefore...") is the entire exercise.

Yeah i read that part. Thats the part thats wrong.

To be honest, I kind of think it's a combination of both #2 and #3.

They know they're lying. But they also believe, and they want everyone else to believe, that anyone who disagrees with them is subhuman, inconsequential.

im not sure why you need to be so dramatic with the timer. just switch already if you don't like it

people who are looking for work. you will too one day when you're finally kicked out of the pool, and discover your assumptions about why you had work in the past were wrong.

the problem with ignorance is that those who are ignorant aren't able to appreciate the bliss until after it's gone.

They put too much AI in it bot enough engineering rigor

much stronger

Don't forget that is also Harder, Better, Faster.