programmer' text editor need to have it as bare minimum. otherwise, i would have to go to sublime or vscode for text editing and then I will wonder why should I bother with this editor.
The "ensure they use it" is the part that is uncertain, and thus the 'scam' aspect. Amazon (and other vendors) are betting that a significant percentage of end users will not actually use it, and the seller will get to keep the entire balance as profit.
According to some not-very-thorough queries, somewhere from 10–19% of gift cards are never redeemed in the USA, which equates to tens of billions of dollars. Unreal. If even half of that is true, that's a tremendous amount of charity to corporations.
the problem with technical software names is that they are either too long, too pointless, do not die when underlying tool goes through re-incarnation(looking at you angular) or worse, too important to be wasted on a lesser quality project (looking at you react-router).
in my company, we have a tool whose technical name was four word long, and has just as much cognitive load as any technical name.
one of my biggest contribution to that project was to Name it.i gave it a simple name, with zero relation to tech or any software
and suddenly our PMs, Managers, Users can pronounce it and can actually type it correctly and of course recall it's name flawlessly.
so, at least from my experience, having a small, easy to pronounce name is more important than having technical name.
Moreover having a name with all of the qualities is definitely desirable, but there are many projects in world and not that great names. and many Great names (looking at you, Vue.js) are either already taken or beyond my naming skills
nuxt, sveltekit etc don't have RSC equivalent. and won't have in future either. Vue has discussed it and explicitly rejected it. also RSC was proposed to sveltekit, they also rejected it citing public endpoint should not be hidden
they may get other vulnemerelities as they are also in JS, but RSC class vulelnebereleties won't be there
Yes, of course AI offered by a company can be sued. The reason corporations became legal people in the first place was specifically so we could sue them.
> Not everywhere in the world do companies count as people
Actually yes, everywhere in the world. That has a functioning legal system, at least.
If companies weren't treated as legal persons, they wouldn't be able to enter into contracts.
But also, just to be clear, a legal person, like a corporation, is not a natural person. Unlike a natural person, they can't vote. There isn't anywhere in the world that considers corporations to be natural persons.
Laws are different in different counties, and I can't speak to all of them, but in the US, the law said you could only sue people, and the courts realized this was a problem. Rather than saying "I guess corporations get are exempt from all liability until Congress gets around to fixing it", they came up with a weird workaround that lives with us to this day.
EDIT: Note that ianal, nor a historian. The specifics of how this came about are best learned from a more authoritative source.
>Yes, of course AI offered by a company can be sued.
In theoretical sense sure.
In a practical sense? They are invulnerable due to what can be extreme financial obstacles they can put in place. They can drag a court case out until you fold if you haven't found a lawyer willing to do it on contigency.
This is kind of unfortunate in this case as it breaks some tooling since the extra trees are not collocated with git, like editor inline history/blame or agents that know to look in git history to fix their mistakes
I think the biggest benefits of colocation are, in rough approximation of the order I encounter them:
1) Various read-only editor features, like diff gutters, work as they usually do. Our editor support still just isn't there yet, I'm afraid.
2) Various automation that tends to rely on things like running `git` -- again, often read-only -- still work. That means you don't have to go and do a bunch of bullshit or write a patch your coworker has to review in order to make your ./run-all-tests.sh scripts work locally, or whatever.
3) Sometimes you can do some kind of nice things like run `git fetch $SOME_URL` and then `git checkout FETCH_HEAD` and it works and jj handles it fine. But I find this rare; I sometimes use this to checkout GitHub PRs locally though. This could be replaced 99% for me by having a `jj github` command or something.
The last one is very marginal, admittedly. Claude I haven't had a problem with; it tends to use jj quite easily with a little instruction.
To be technical, it's more that it can read and write the on-disk Git format directly, like many other tools can.
I think the easiest way to conceptualize it is to think of Git and jj as being broken down into three broad "layers": data storage, algorithms, user interface. Jujutsu uses the same data storage format as Git -- but each of them have their own algorithms and user interface built atop that storage.
You can still use git worktrees in a colocated repository. jj workspaces are a different, but similar capability that provide some extra features, at the cost of some others.
> there is no difference as jj is only a frontend to git.
It's easy to get this impression because git is so dominant, so most people using jj use it as a frontend to git.
But jj is a fully self-contained version control system. It always stores all its commits, branches, and other repo metadata in the .jj directory. You can use it standalone like this without ever using git.
Git integration is optional, and works by importing from or exporting to Git. Internally, jj still manages its own history. Git support is just a bridge.
jj may use git as (one of) its backing stores, and its collocation offers some compatibility at the cost of important tradeoffs, but it isn’t intended to be a git frontend.
if AI were deterministic, what difference would different AI model make?