Mullvad issued a response. Which IMO is shitty.

Source

The lab has built its own software platform for operating BCI devices known as Brain-computer interface for Rapidly Adaptive Neural Decoding (BRAND, which Brandman told us was coincidentally named), which UCD postdoctoral fellow Nick Card built machine learning algorithms for.

Aah… So not LLMs. Makes sense.

Also to the reporter who decided to focus on ‘full time job’ in the title. You focused on 5 hours of work instead of the fact that the patient can now interact with his daughter, who never heard him speak, and also he is able to have conversations with his friends and family. Please be more human.

Unless they developed something radically different than, transformer architecture from Google and mixture of experts from Deepseek, this is just absolute bullshit. Just like they claimed Mythos is something out of this world, but it was just another step in the progress.

Not really. This is not about money but about skill. Hence I said this is not 100% accurate and added a proper explanation.

Open source is not about money. The philosophy and culture around it is centered around a set of values. It’s free as in freedom.

I’m completely aware about that. Hence the acknowledgement and explanation in the first comment itself.

This is from rsync repo.

I remember reading an article where the author explained why telling this is free, you can fork, or send a pull request instead of complaining is a form of ableism.

An analogy, which is not 100% accurate, which I used to explain it to ither people is, "it is not very different from a carpenter telling you, ‘the wood is here, the tools also, you can do it yourself it you didn’t like what I did’.

The point is software development is a skill. Not everyone can have that skill. It takes training and practice to be good in the craft. A user of the product does not need the skill to operate it. Never think it is okay to tell people “just fork it” or “why don’t you send a pull request instead of complaining?”.

At the same time, I completely acknowledge that there are some entitled assholes who don’t understand or care about the open source philosophy and how it works. I just wanted to point out that asking to contribute or asking to fork is not the right way to address it.

Anyone else hate the structure and style of Axios reporting? Those bullet points like structure?

I think it is just chain of trust. Many used Microslop as the trust authority (may be due to convenience? I have no idea). Debian has a nice page on Secure boot and how it works.

So I haven’t felt the need to go with a tiling compositors. I already use multiple munitors, and kind of have designated spots for the apps I use.

I love stability and don’t want any surprises after Windows made enough surprises. So decided to go with Debian Trixie, and KDE.

But I use Arch in my spare laptop, btw. EndeavorOS where I experiment some stuff. Maybe down the line I will give hyprland a try on my spare first.

Yeah… It is the Windows that finally pushed me the fastest to install Linux. I was very comfortable with Debian servers as part of my work, but never managed to switch my daily driver. Two weeks ago that happened. Peace…

That is Victoria Fischer. This part of the video is fun,

Customer Case: Mercedes-Benz with Victoria Fischer | #QtWS23

Please tell this is fake. I want to be ignorant about this.

Someone please explain what is going on. I have no clue what this is.

This reminds me that my Downloads folder is like the attic. I don’t fear ls -a in ~, but I fear what I will find if I wander into Downloads unprepared.

The problem is not when I have to rebase. I know how to handle it. But with juniors they approach us only when things are in a really bad situation, where they cluelessly applied some commands they found on internet or from an LLM. Then it is very annoying to sit down and untangle the mess they created.

And regarding the pushing without fetching, it is usually a different branch. So they won’t incorporate the new changes in the main branch into their working branch, but just push their work into a branch. Again not a big deal. Just annoying.

That is a very weird setup. I have no clue why that flow is needed in the first place. Branches should be something disposable easily. What was the logic behind the setup? Any idea?

See all this is fine for someone with good experience in git. They know how to solve the screw up. But wih junior devs, who don’t know much about it, they will just get confused and stuck. And one of the senior has to involve and help them solve. This is just annoying because these can be avoided very easily. Until they understand the pattern of how everyone operates with git, it just creates issues.

To me first time causing this issue is completely fine. I will personally sit with them and explain then what went wrong and how to recover. Most of them will repeat it again, act clueless and talk like they are seeing this for the first time in their life. That is the difficult part to me.

May be I’m just old school, and a grumpy old person, even though I’m not that aged.

So this workflow is needed if you are working on a public, i.e. multiple devs collaborating on a single branch, scenario. But it is much better to avoid this as much as possible. Usually it is a ‘scoping’ issue, where you create a branch that is too broad. For example ‘api-for-frontend’, which is a massive thing.

But let us say you absolutely have to get multiple devs on same branch, then this workflow is totally fine. There is nothing wrong in it.

In our org we prefer to delete the branch after merge. In a way it says ‘this branch is closed’. This is to encourage devs to define smaller and more logically scoped branches.

I want to take this opportunity to say that, branch is just a label on a commit, with some additional functions. Once you start focus on commits and lineage of the commits, then branches become some what irrelevant.

Yeah.But many of them are extremely annoying. Specifically screwing up rebase. It is recoverable, but very annoying.

That said I have seen juniors make two other common mistakes.

1. Pushing your commit without fetching
2. Continuing on a branch even after it was merged.

I’m fed up with these two. Yesterday I had to cherry-pick to solve a combination of these two.