Fair use commentary generally requires as little of the actual original work to be used as possible. Summary may be ok, clips/recordings are ok, but they must be minimal. That commentary must also be substantive.

Reproducing a work in full (thus obviously limiting the commercial viability of the original work - another factor considered) with light commentary over the top probably wouldn’t hold up in court. The commentary just avoids automatic systems in the increasingly poorly moderated internet.

I think it would be great if more men read (or just read summaries of) basic feminist texts, especially Judith Butler and people of her ilk. Before I realised I wasn’t a man they helped me. I think the deconstruction of gender that feminism offers serve men just as much as women - it made masculinity feel like less of a prison (nevermind that I ultimately largely moved more feminine).

I remember reading authors like John Stoltenberg, the aforementioned Judith Butler, and some perspectives of feminism/masculinity in a working class context.

The Affinity suite is not an Adobe product.

I’ve used it most extensively for non-professional projects, where if I wasn’t using this kind of tooling to write tests they would simply not be written. That means no tickets to close either. That said, I am aware that the AI is almost always at best testing for regression (I have had it correctly realise my logic is incorrect and write tests that catch it, but that is by no means reliable) Part of the “hand holding” I mentioned involves making sure it has sufficient coverage of use cases and edge cases, and that what it expects to be the correct is actually correct according to intent.

I essentially use the AI to generate a variety of scenarios and complementary test data, then further evaluating it’s validity and expanding from there.

I most often just get it straight up misunderstanding how the test framework itself works, but I’ve definitely had it make strange decisions like that. I’m a little convinced that the only reason I put up with it for unit tests is because I would probably not write them otherwise haha.

I think its most useful as an (often wrong) line completer than anything else. It can take in an entire file and just try and figure out the rest of what you are currently writing. Its context window simply isn’t big enough to understand an entire project.

That and unit tests. Since unit tests are by design isolated, small, and unconcerned with the larger project AI has at least a fighting change of competently producing them. That still takes significant hand holding though.

I knew something was wrong but I didn’t put the dots together until my early 20s. I’d definitely had “I wanna be a girl” thoughts as a kid/teen but wasn’t super aware that being trans was a thing so shoved them to the back of my brain and allowed myself to just kinda feel broken instead.

“Oh shit I’m a girl?”

• !trans@lemmy.blahaj.zone (I moderate there ;))
• !mtf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
• !ftm@lemmy.blahaj.zone
• !transgender@lemmy.blahaj.zone

C’mon, that’s what PR’s, RCs, and betas are for

It’s important to note that this is them moving in-development branches/features “behind closed doors”, not making Android closed source. Whenever a feature is ready they then merge it publicly. I know this community tends to be filled with purists, many of whom are well informed and reasoned, but I’m actually totally fine with this change. This kind of structure isn’t crazy uncommon, and I imagine it’s mainly an effort to stop tech journalists analysing random in-progress features for an article. Personally, I wouldn’t want to develop code with that kind of pressure.

Transition at a younger age. Would have saved me a lot of hurt in the years between

It’s such a cesspool over there

People should just be using TOTP, its only a little less convenient in my opinion (or actually more sometimes, like when you don’t get the SMS MFA code for an hour!)

I will be dead and buried in the ground before I call nginx “engine x”