> æ (U+00E6) is not a ligature; it's a mostly obsolete character, with different semantics (or phonetics) than ae.
Reading that a letter in my alphabet is mostly obsolete feels really weird. No rebuttal, just a comment.
> It would never substitute æ for ae; that would misspell the word as much as substituting an o.
While that is correct, a lot of other systems actually do this exact substition. If your name contains æ it will be substituted with ae in passports, plane tickets and random other systems throughout your life.
My own username on this website is an example of a similar substition. The oe should be read as the single character ø.
Languages often simplify as they evolve, dropping "annoying" characters like æ. In fact, it was replaced by "e" (or ae itself) in most cases as the words got imported by other languages.
A personal hypothesis is that additional characters were much simpler in the age of handwriting, most of the history of literacy, compared to the age of print, the current age.
Using handwriting, additional characters are simple and in fact Medieval European scribes used many abbreviations, etc. When you need to set type on a printing press, or even input a character not already on your computer keyboard, the barrier is higher.
It's mostly obsolete in English, which I think is safe to say and which does not conflict with it being used. For example, I think few people know how to type it into a computer, while everyone who uses a Latin alphabet can type ae.
To be fair I think most English speakers are unfamiliar with how to type most accents. But it appears to me that æ is available as long press "accented character" just like é and ë, also used in English, so they are equally reachable on mobile phone.
> Really Microsoft should be auditing the search that copilot executes, its actually a bit misleading to be auditing the file as accessed when copilot has only read the indexed content of the file, I don't say I've visited a website when I've found a result of it in Google
Not my domain of expertise, but couldn't you at some point argue that the indexed content itself is an auditable file?
It's not literally a file necessarily, but if they contain enough information that they can be considered sensitive, then where is the significant difference?
> Always: > > Thoroughly review and understand the generated code
I think this is good advice actually. We do allow LLM agents where I work, but you still need to understand every line of code that you write or generate. That’s probably why we still do physical interviews as well.
It's great advice for anything AI-generated in a professional production environment. I think the question is whether it's vibe coding with that requirement in place. Or, rather, if the requirement is appropriate for how vibe coding is often used and promoted today (by non-coders).
Basically all of the suggestions on that page were good practice, and not just for code. Documenting your changes, reviewing the output of an AI (or junior person), writing meaningful commits ... all of these apply equally to code, contracts, whatever. I read this post as "If you want vibe coding to be coding you still have to do a lot of hard work and not treat it as a magic app engine." Which is true but absolutely not what a lot of vibe code-embracing middle managers want to hear.
I agree. Personally, I barely use any LLM tools professionally as a developer, and I don't use it at all in my free time. I do however have some coworkers that use it more heavily. Having a culture of proper code reviews and requirements that you need to know what the code in your PR does ensures that we have create proper solutions.
I don't think I could enjoy working at a place where people didn't know the content of the commits they made. I remember the early talks of vibe coding being that you're not even supposed to look at the code, and have been very happy that I haven't met anyone professionally that codes like that.
Edit: the flagged comment I replied to claimed that no EU country had free speech in their constitution. This is objectively wrong, and is why I wrote my comment.
Calling someone an asshole, or calling them a racist if they seem to discriminate you based on your race, saying a restaurant isn't good etc. can very easily get you sued in Germany.
They are in fact self censoring. I live there and many people are just Nazis. It's illegal to be a Nazi, but the law works on facts you can prove in court, and the only way you can prove that is if they, for example, yelled Heil Hitler, or did the salute, or waved a swastika flag. As long as they're not too obvious about it, it's de facto allowed. Some people are still stupid enough to do the obvious signs of course.
> "Multiple EU countries have free speech written in their constituion."
That's an exceedingly low bar! We need more critical thinking than that to start a substantive discussion about comparative freedoms across political systems. A government can't just declare itself to be a free country; it's practical reality which matters.
Exhibits A, B, & C:
> "Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration"
> "In conformity with the interests of the toilers, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:—(a) Freedom of speech; (b) Freedom of the Press; (c) Freedom of assembly and of holding mass meetings; (d) Freedom of street processions and demonstrations..."
> "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee the conditions for the free activities of democratic political parties and social organizations."
You have to assume the country in question follows has a Rule of Law. You're argument also works against the US as of recently, less so against Germany.
Not true at all, Elon Musk has already cut off access for Ukraine because of his own personal views[1]. There's a reason why he's currently hated in most of Europe.
That article is heavily slanted, while providing the facts hidden in the text: Starlink was never enabled in Sevastopol. Musk simply denied an informal request to enable it to be used in a first strike, and deferred that decision to the DoD, which he contacted.
Which is the correct thing to do when random people ask private companies to go to war.
But why should I care about the contract when the providers violates it as well? When you provide your services in the country I reside in but refuse to follow our national laws, you have violated the contract as well.
I live in Norway, and even "serious" advertisers shows me alcohol and gambling advertisiments. This is strictly forbidden by norwegian law, yet I have seen multiple advertisements of this kind from Google, Facebook and Discovery. Discovery in particular has just recently agreed to follow the law for television broadcasts, to be fair.
GDPR is also violated a lot, especially by advertising corporations. I have never consented to the vast amount of tracking that I'm subjected to when browsing the internet, even though I have that right.
It's not like they are obligated to provide services to my country either. If european laws are too strict, they can always leave instead of violating our rights.
Reading that a letter in my alphabet is mostly obsolete feels really weird. No rebuttal, just a comment.
> It would never substitute æ for ae; that would misspell the word as much as substituting an o.
While that is correct, a lot of other systems actually do this exact substition. If your name contains æ it will be substituted with ae in passports, plane tickets and random other systems throughout your life.
My own username on this website is an example of a similar substition. The oe should be read as the single character ø.