yeah. It should be the same with Facebook. Here in Australia, it seems like nothing is against the community standards anymore (not spam, porn or even violent threats)

And that’s without paying royalties to content creators as they should be required to do

Did you even read that 1 study you’re repeating, or just click the link

If you read the study, they ran the tests over 13 mins only. And, they didn’t keep retesting to see if results changed over time either. If that ran the test over an hour, both results may have ended up at similar levels (we don’t know because it only tested over a short time)

You need to learn to stop exaggerating or actually read crap instead of just the headline lol

I know it’s the same study we both (or presumably just myself) read, because it was the only one. I wouldn’t call that “extremely well” anything

You seem to believe that’s a great response. At this point, you’re just arguing (which seems to be most of your Lemmy history).

If you want to argue that a journalist with a slop blog and no evidence of being a developer anywhere is credible, that’s up to you.

All I see is obviously bad journalism from a guy who wants attention…

We did the maths. Didn’t seem worthwhile and the payback period was a very long time

Or maybe his blog post falls apart completely by simply pointing out that AI isn’t approving code, code doesn’t go straight to main, and all code is manually code reviewed by human.

And his blog is pages of slop.

Removed by mod

You’re not wrong. This entire story is not unique in any capacity honestly. The story even points out other developers have tried to fix this issue with problem.

The only thing that changed, is that someone saw this time it said “AI”, and got a boner thinking about the upvotes and attention they could receive

You understand it less it sounds like.

1. Race Conditions are common. This isn’t new to AI. Nobody writes stories about them though unless they lead to security issues (like with XFS, which had one for 10 years and only fixed recently).
2. There is a lot happening in the kernel, its not always a matter of looking in one tiny location. A race condition is pretty broad and can lead to many things.
3. Patches get rejected all the time, for reasons including race conditions which are identified.
4. If you check the post, other developers had tried and failed to fix the same issue. He’s not the only one. It was just yet another failed attempt
5. Optimisation is HARD, and always has been.
6. Finally, you say “suggested it for submission”. That code would go to a staging repo first for testing. He wasn’t suggesting pushing it immediately to the main tree…
7. Standard development tools (at least for my development work) wouldn’t catch race conditions (maybe commercial ones / high end ones would)… AI is actually far better at detecting these things

This isn’t a unique or interesting story in any capacity… It’s boring and normal

The code still undergoes the exact same code review as before, because humans were the original slop coders.

The standards needed for code to be accepted haven’t changed at all. Even the code Linus personally is reviewed…

I’d argue that pretending this is a big deal for some cheap hits is even worse though. The system is designed to identify when things like this happen, and it worked perfectly.

Race conditions in general aren’t newsworthy at all.

They’re generally fairly complex, an easy mistake to make (especially when optimising) and rarely obvious… And fairly common…

This isn’t even newsworthy… Race Conditions aren’t rare.

Why? because of a race condition?

We’ve had race conditions in the kernel since the beginning. And, he didn’t vibe code an old kernel bug back in…

Race conditions aren’t newsworthy at all honestly, unless they cause a security issue

Yep. And the kernel did actually have a backdoor attempt at some point. And it was noticed too https://www.infoq.com/news/2013/10/Linux-Backdoor/

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not the kernel…

Cool assumption. But pretty sure it’s not how things work at all but sounds great…

What actually happens is that you have a long list of multiple maintainers reviewing , and multiple branches for testing, and multiple layers of review too.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainers.html . See that long list of maintainers for a start.

The actual policy is that everything ends up getting reviewed by a human. If I post a patch, it doesn’t go straight to master

If it’s not being properly tested and maintained, it gets dropped irrespective of what it is (remember devfs?)

Also, I’m not sure about the kernel specifically, but on projects I submitted code to, they often wanted complex patches broken down if possible.

That’s what code review is for lol.

Where is the story here?

It didn’t take long for more info to come out about the A20, and the suspected compromises that are being made on the iPhone: https://wccftech.com/apple-a20-solder-joint-leak-base-iphone-18-compromises/ . I also used to sell their gear for 3 years

Pretty much every company has been busted cheating on benchmarks, including Nvidia and Intel (its easy to do, just detect the starting frames, or/and the exe). And, I spent all of last week optimising code using benchmarks (and profiling)

On Desktop applications in particular, Apple’s biggest failure has always been GPU. Which is why testers often test things like encoding (it has a chip designed to accelerate video encoding), CPU, and rarely games.

Like my M2 Mac Studio looked awesome in benchmarks (Toms hardware did one too). They didn’t test games, because if they tested things like Raytracing, they would have discovered the M2 never had raytracing built in (and, computers which cost the same price DID at the time)

My Mac Pro looked awesome on paper too (it even needed FB ECC Dimms to work). The GPU was absolute slop compared to what PC’s were shipping, which is why sites only ever seemed to test Apps…

If someone like Steve was testing this, I’d trust it immediately. But the entire premise of the article is around 1 benchmark… And for all we know, they might have been testing against absolute crap products

They probably optimize for the benchmark… It’s not uncommon

And there are so many people “triggered” by it