The title is non-telling, the metadata page description is non-telling, no post description. What is this about?

This community's rule 3:

If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos

Looks like the video itself also has no useful description. Only an unlabeled ad.

Copying the generated AI summary from YouTube from the description section:

The PrimeTime analyzes claims made by Anthropic and Boris regarding the state of modern software development. By examining technical issues with Claude Code, this critique questions the narrative that coding is largely solved, suggesting that the current push toward fully agentic workflows might be misleading and potentially harmful to professional software engineers.

:squint: :P

Depends on the spec/implementation. If it's random generated tokens then I imagine they're not [necessarily] one per user. You could generate an arbitrary number and get new ones arbitrarily, regularly.

Without some technical information, with only this press release, we can't tell.

Private Access Control Tokens (PACT) are designed to allow sites with strong knowledge of “personhood” to issue anonymous tokens.

A centralization of authorization. So that's why Google and Microsoft are interested.

If it's open enough, could still be a net-positive.

Depends on the mechanism though. Too weak and it can be automated and misused, losing "it's a human". Too strong and there's more concerns about privacy, control, and centralization of the selected auth providers and browsers making the selection.

Maybe hosters could use their own trust lists, like Firefox does for certs. But most will just go with the big and common default set.

I'd prefer skipping the anti-ai guards. But having to give a passwort to Google for it? I don't know. They'd have enough data on me to know I'm a human without it.

This is a press release. Is there more technical or concise information?

I'm sure you'll get a break once all questions have been answered

dead

Connection timed out Error code 522

What's the tl;dr? What's the language for?

I scrolled through, but it wasn't quite obvious.

Metaverse First: Verse is designed for a future where code runs in a single global simulation—the metaverse. This influences every aspect of the language, from its strong compatibility guarantees to its effect system that tracks side effects and ensures safe concurrent execution. - Book of Verse

😕

As UE5 and UEFN merge into one editor, you will be able to ship traditional games and projects exactly as you do today. You’ll be able to ship directly in Fortnite, or ship to your own ecosystem, and optionally, make it compatible with ours. You’ll have an easy path from one to another.

Our philosophy through this transition is to bring existing projects along, not to force a hard break. Studios shipping on UE5 today should expect a manageable, and clear path forward when UE6 is ready for them. To allow for this, Actors and Blueprints will be in early versions of UE6. Eventually, these will be deprecated when the new framework is sufficiently mature, and you’ll have conversion tools to move projects from one framework to the other.

I'm surprised they're targeting a hard break. The goals seem to be platform onboarding, which can be considered an opposite goal to people who develop their own products.

Also, nobody actually knows if human intelligence is just finer grained stochastic prediction as well.

An interesting but valid argument. It doesn't make AI better than it is, but any human contribution and change can and often is also faulty. People have gaps of knowledge, sometimes unwarranted confidence, other times lack of care, or just miss things. It's not like we're comparing the perfect human vs faulty AI.

If you don’t mind the security risk then you can of course use an older release.

I haven't read the original rage/drama but I can imagine if from other drama instances.

This post is certainly a good, founded response.

There's some valid concerns in AI usage, but unwarranted or inappropriate harsh criticism when it's an established trusted developer and engineer - if we assumed good practice before then we could assume continued good practice. Maybe LLM is one point of increasing skepticism, but criticism should be open, respectful, and fair.

They invested a lot of time and effort into a public good project. In that context, they deserve at least respectful and non-worst-assumptuous criticism.

That's a read-only mirror, not a "move onto GitHub".

PRs get automatically closed, referring to the contrib docs.

• https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/contributing/how_to_submit_a_patch.html
• https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/

Turned into a skeleton in 10 minutes

March 30, 2026 @ 10:45 AM EST: Martin Woodward, Vice President of Developer Relations at GitHub, confimed that Copilot was injecting product tips into pull requests but that the feature has been disabled following feedback.

They posted an update to the article about this recent update. After feedback, they decided to disable this feature.

I scale by dropping requests

DuckDuckGo

no no no, this is the wrong way around

because sales and marketing sell it before it even exists

These terms included affirming the statement that we 'do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,'

Insane. I can't even fathom adding such a condition. And to a well established org with a positive track record.

Toxic offer. Wouldn't even be able to say that inclusivity is a good thing.

A code leak doesn't give a code and product use license. Any project and product use based on the leaked code is less stable and safe than other solid projects under clear terms. OpenCode is not obsolete.

CrowdStrike ToS, section 8.6 Disclaimer

[…] THE OFFERINGS AND CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE NOT FAULT-TOLERANT AND ARE NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE IN ANY HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE OR OPERATION. NEITHER THE OFFERINGS NOR CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION, NUCLEAR FACILITIES, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, WEAPONS SYSTEMS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, OR ANY APPLICATION OR INSTALLATION WHERE FAILURE COULD RESULT IN DEATH, SEVERE PHYSICAL INJURY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE. […]

It's about safety, but truly ironic how it mentions aircraft-related twice, and communication systems (very broad).

It certainly doesn't impose confidence in the overall stability. But it's also general ToS-speak, and may only be noteworthy now, after the fact.

Codeberg published a blog post yesterday. They suspect (or know?) that it's a broadened attack because Codeberg hosts liberal and human projects.

In the past days, several projects advocating tolerance and equal rights on Codeberg have been subject to hate attacks, such as massive spam of abusive messages in their issue trackers. We have been monitoring the situation closely and have tried to clean up the content as quickly as possible.

Often, content remained available only for a few and up to 30 minutes. Due to constrained personal capacities, some rare cases have remained online for longer. We appreciate all your reports to [email protected] that help us identify abuse quickly.

On 12 February 2025, an abuser has escalated the attacks to a next level. Instead of targetting individual projects, they have started to create abusive content and mentioned Codeberg users in chunks of 100 each.

(emphasis mine)

Baffling that the chain did not immediately respond with "we introduced new rules requiring all our stores not to allow smart glasses or other recording devices in their treatment rooms". Seems so obvious, yet we see nothing like that in the article.