I have noticed that the darkest "black level" is less black (despite it being OLED screen) than on glossy screens in light conditions. That difference disappears in darker environment.
I explicitly bought a high-end matte TV (Samsungs S95D) because of the coating - I like having light in my living room which means a lot of reflections from windows and other lights.
Matte coating pretty much solved all my issues with glare and reflections and I don't have to sit in darkness while watching things anymore, it's great. The tradeoffs are negligible and appear in situations where other TVs would be unwatchable. It's been a bigger QoL upgrade than actually switching to OLED.
> Just because you got shat on the head once it doesn't mean it's fine to be shat on the head every day now.
This happens frequently when there are fixes for CVEs, since regression tests can't catch many things which incremental rollouts can. It happened for example in 2025. People are right to imply the reaction is totally outsized here, and it's almost certainly the case that people are overreacting to AI (rather than the somewhat weak idea that it's because of the frequency of these issues).
What's really funny is that the people opposing AI here are showing far less literacy than those who wrote the code. People claiming to be affected by this bug severely are likely exposing themselves:
* One bug is for Linux < 5.6, where it didn't hit distributions. This is a low severity bug where it can't build, where distribution maintainers may be reasonably expected to fix it themselves (although rsync will also fix it eventually too).
You probably don't want to revert in this scenario. If someone is hit by this bug and is running rsync in an automated manner, it is highly likely they're ignoring very many security practices: you're usually not supposed to run native rsync in an automated manner (the main use case is for public users, where you can't SSH etc; since it's unencrypted, you're supposed to check a checksum against a website etc); these cases are hit with chroot false, which is deeply discouraged and leads to far larger attack surfaces.
its not an article, its a github issue. There is no proof, someone posted a screenshot of another person on twitter complaining about a vague bug they experienced. It's certainly not clear the maintainer used an llm in the way described (how would you know unless they told you?). Its not even clear what issues there are specifically, or whether they were caused by ai usage.
Regressions are bad and they should be avoided. Still, software engineering is a complex thing and regressions happened long time before coding agents were a thing. Unless one can pinpoint regression to changes that were more sloppy than the human-written rsync commits were I don't think coding agents are to blame.
Seems like that it's not that coding agents are to blame, its that the people who are ultimately responsible for committing and merging the offending code are to blame, regardless of its origin.
Or they are to blame because fixing 1000 CVE's doesn't magically absolve one of responsibility for regression bugs, even if one "accepts" them as a psychological salve.
If you are entitled enough then they are to blame they didn't fix everything at once, but in that case you really should be paying for their product and support. Otherwise fixing security issues has high enough priority to accept there might be downstream bugs that will be fixed in due course.
Would you hold off on fixing a security vulnerability if it caused a limited regression?
Regressions should be fixed expediently, but if you apply the criteria "need to not happen" they are literally blocking issues. They could then block security fixes.
Which part of security fixing demands thoughtless generation of code slop without regression testing though?
I worked on major OSS projects and we never just blindly pushed out untested poor quality code for security fixes since that adds WORSE security regressions.
The methodology describes the effort you may be putting into something, The outcomes are about what results are you prepared to accept.
Would you ship an update with a security fix if it had been thoroughly tested was shown to have certain regressions but no worse security regressions? Would you refuse to fix the security issue until you could do so without any degradation?
It's clear that people can and do accept regressions for security updates. Spectre mitigations cause performance regressions. SharedArrayBuffer got taken away for a while. Being absolutist about things seldom helps.
I agree due care should be taken where possible, but I'm also prepared to accept that mistakes can happen even when people have worked diligently to find issues.
Since you have worked on major OSS projects. Have any of them shipped regressions unintentionally? Right now that is the only thing we have to go on, that these things happened. The degree of care taken is an unknown, as is the degree of LLM involvement. We might know more in a week or two.
If you want to condemn something based upon what might have happened you can specifically state what you think shouldn't happen, and that will stand regardless of whether or not it applies to the current incident.
Obviously "Thoughtless generation of code slop without regression testing" is unacceptable, but that is because the conclusion is written into the statement by saying "thoughtless" "slop" and "without regression testing"
If tridge says 'I gave it thought, I don't agree that it is slop, and I did regression testing' then you have nothing further to complain about, because the incident does not fall under the criteria you specified.
It's saying 'things that are bad, are bad'. The defence is to say 'well, this isn't bad'
> ...if it had been thoroughly tested was shown to have certain regressions but no worse security regressions?
You'd have to test to know this, and there is no evidence that tridge did this regression testing - or ask Claude to find possible regressions caused by proposed changes. If tridge did test for regressions, but chose not to document the regression, then it's still negligence, regardless of the tools pr processes involved.
Are you saying that it is irresponsible to test for regressions and to not document the ones you didn't find or that you think it is reasonable to expect regression tests for every possible regression?
What were you trying to say? Because what you wrote is what parent responded to.
> there is no evidence that tridge did this regression testing
What evidence would you be looking for? New tests, like the ones added in the AI-assisted commits? What other evidence?
> If tridge did test for regressions, but chose not to document the regression
Presumably you weren't trying to imply here that tridge found a regression and decided to ship the code anyway; so parent went to a natural assumption - do you think testing for regressions finds all regressions?
It's always interesting to see accounts popping up in this thread trying to delegitimize EU and spew out bunch of vague misleading statements against it.
Why is that? Which EU citizen protection is angering you? :)
Nothing of that is angering me, I live in the EU and life is pretty nice.
My comment above was meant to provide context and to point out that both sides of the argument can be legitimate.
The comment is neutral, you shouldn't be able to infer what I think about the EU from it. It simply points out facts and says that reducing a point of view to being uninformed is too easy.
My stance on the EU is complex: it does good, it does bad, it affects each member states differently, it changes over time. Those are all pretty neutral statements too, only siths live in extremes ;-).
Now that's double standard here, isn't it? Putting up questions on forms that require you to reveal your political pole and follow the politics of one party to answer isn't really kosher in any academic environment.
Trying to reframe them as "we didn't REALLY mean it!" (while also insulting a race and sex) doesn't help your case.
This is what the communist leads of universities did here in eastern europe and it was disgusting back then as well.
Yeah, me pointing out the people exactly like me totally can and do fill in boxes like this and secure grants is totally "insulting a race and sex". I thought it was supposed to be the libs who were grievance mongers desperate to feel discriminated against...
Honestly, if filling in those boxes with anything other than a diatribe against the suitability of women and minorities and poor people to do research is "following the politics of one party" now, that says more about the conformance demanded by the other party than the science. Good to hear you're much happier now they're in charge and introducing formal komissar roles to ensure that any studies whose results contradict RFK Lysenko Jr or reference transgenic mice or Transjordan or employ too many research assistants with funny foreign names are liable to be defunded before publication.
If filling those boxes was so easy, you won't have issues filling up republican boxes with content they want to hear to get funding, right?
That's what happens when academia politicizes themselves - they become part of the game. And that means begging for scraps of who ever is currently on the top.
It's horrible... but you said yourself - you just need to fill some boxes correctly.
Except, of course, that it isn't a matter of simply filling in checkboxes stating how research is going to contribute towards Americans' greatness. It's a matter of mass retrospective cancellation of research funding and the replacement of peer review with commissar review by the sort of people that can't tell the difference between transgenic and transgender and block the publication of studies if they don't align with the administration's position on vaccines
Nobody honestly believes the two are equivalent.
Ultimately an argument that an application question with option for researchers to state they have an equal opportunities policy is as much of an imposition as legislating for studies to be retrospectively defunded if the clinical outcomes don't align with the administrations' preferred pseudoscience says more about you than it does about past politicization of science...
reply