It’s a terrible adage. There are thousands of ways to cheat honest people that place bets. For example, they definitely cheated everyone that only placed bets before June.

He went to prison, served his time, paid his debt to society. There is no need for further punishment.

But do they use it when their homework is due?

No, it's a myth - actually they scoffed and complained very loudly recently when they were picking a destination for a school trip, and the teacher suggested they would use ChatGPT "quickly" to compare their suggestions. Also anyone who thinks the kids could survive school assignments based on ChatGPT...clearly does not know who schools work these days...

Interesting anecdote, that's been almost the complete opposite of my experience in Higher Ed.

I probably know more people using AI to cheese all of their school assignments than those that are fully 'clean'.

Our experiences differ, it's no myth over here.

I do really like the idea.

But pardon my ignorance, but one could quite easily roll this themselves? Script the hooks and fire off a headless agent with a hook specific prompt.

Very fair question.

One could build a simple version of this easily - e.g. setup an endpoint that listens for the particular event you are concerned with, and fire off the headless agent with your hook specific prompt - but the amount of work involved to listen for that particular event while filtering out noise and orchestrating the task is actually not trivial.

Plus, that involves writing a lot of code. It's really magical to express all of this in natural language.

For example, this is the YAML frontmatter for a a daemon that keeps a GitHub PR in a mergeable state in the event of CI failures or branch base changes.

  ---
  id: pr-mergeability
  purpose: Keep non-draft pull requests mergeable and CI-green without changing PR intent/scope, while staying anchored to one trigger context per run.
  watch:
    - Branch sync and update events on non-draft PRs.
    - Check-status signals on non-draft PRs for checks that affect mergeability.
  routines:
    - Resolve mechanical merge conflicts when the safe resolution is clear and preserves PR intent/scope.
    - 'Apply low-risk mergeability fixes: snapshot updates, lockfile drift fixes, lint autofix, and flaky-test retries when tied to the trigger context.'
    - Escalate semantic/intention conflicts between base and branch instead of auto-resolving.
  deny:
    - When triggered by a check-status signal, do not fix or comment on unrelated failing checks.
    - Do not open new pull requests or new issues.
    - Do not review, approve, or request changes on pull requests.
    - Do not implement review-comment suggestion patches.
    - Avoid force-push by default; if force is absolutely required, use `--force-with-lease` only after fresh remote verification.
    - Do not make changes beyond mergeability maintenance.
  ---

Note the lack of any code or required knowledge of GitHub webhooks.

Seems the markdown input, code output is a very common theme, I use OpenSoucreContracts(https://github.com/s1ugh34d/osc) to have LLM's build software, but building the harness into the contracts is elegant. Combined with prose I sort of have this. With LLM's and the sandbox life, software generation is coming.

What is the benefit of realizing the gains for France? They had gold, they still have gold. They don't pay tax on their gold or gains.

I don't think they cared about realizing the gains. They just wanted to roll to a new position on higher standard ingots. It just so happen that it meant selling/buying, which realizes the gains.

On the other hand, others don’t have to adopt, use or like your stuff which would be the reasons to publish it.

One big commit definitely doesn’t help with creating confidence in this project.

Proving her point.

Apparently he hates the moniker the good people of Atlassian have bestowed on him. Actually, why he would hate being called out like this is baffling to me. It would appear he did everything in his power to earn it!

> Atlassian has denied wrongdoing.

But if they say so themselves!

Marked as wontfix.

Also for a * b + c ? I know clang tidy wants me to do this but I think it is overkill.

I would usually. Sometimes if it's like 2 * x + b, I would not, but personally, I hate chasing down bugs like this, so just add it to remove ambiguity. Also, for like b + 2 * a, I will almost always use parentheses.

From the Stockfish docs at https://official-stockfish.github.io/docs/stockfish-wiki/Sto....

> Rating Stockfish against a human scale, such as FIDE Elo, has become virtually impossible. The gap in strength is so large that a human player cannot secure the necessary draws or wins for an accurate Elo measurement.

[1]: https://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/