I think before, it was easier to spot. Before, the effort spent would often show in the volume or consistency of the writing. Now, one can create a big, wordy and convincing-sounding document (without any grammatical errors!) in mere seconds. It also provides for some convenient plausible deniability: you can always claim the LLM only helped you here and there with the wording.

So now, even figuring out that it was a careless or lazy job takes a lot more time, which drastically skews the economics in favor of the careless person.

I would much rather have my prose contain grammatical errors then have anyone mistake it for LLM output. I am absolutely shocked that anyone has the opposite preference.

I realize it's been "written" by an LLM, but the content could have been written by someone I know. It's eerie how this person thinks exactly the same way. It's never their fault, always the others', and they are always obviously right and no amount of arguing can change their mind.

"Write an essay about struggling to change a software org that doesn't want to change. Make me the hero. Post it at 1am so it looks like I was up late suffering with the burden of what I know."

This is unfortunately the world we are in now.

This is not a politically correct thing to say but there is a class of neurodiverse software developers who display these characteristics and I suspect the author belongs to this group.

Frankly, reminds me of Michael O'Church

Exactly this. The question states it as a fact, so why would you go back and point out the inconsistency?

Also, car companies have a lot at stake and are a clear target. The scammer is hard to even identify, and has no reputation to worry about. Of course in case of a sold extension, the original author of the extension may have a reputation they care about, but only if they're still making other extensions.

S7 is very cool indeed. It also comes as a single C file, which makes it easy to embed.

As a CHICKEN maintainer, I'd love to hear what the author was missing in the FFI part of the manual.

Hmm, it's been a while. It was partly the fact that it was not as simple as s7, and also was complicated a bit by the compiled-to-C nature of Chicken. I did really like what I saw in Chicken though.

Good point regarding registrar. Thinking a bit further, there's also the top-level domain: if that's under US control (eg .com), it could still be yanked away from you.

This is a massive risk that will affect half the internet or so.

.onion might be exempt but while the TLD "." is anycast worldwide for the actual DNS service, Verisign still signs the cert. Isn't that a show-stopper for dependencies on dns-over-https or https altogether or do .cn, .ru, .ir etc all add/replace with their own independent signatures ?

My blog is at https://www.more-magic.net, mostly about programming (with a focus on Scheme) or adjacent stuff.

> - Force better labeling, like the Nutri-Score in France and EU

NutriScore is mostly useless, to the point of being misleading. The system was cooked up by the industry, which explains a lot.

It is a label that tells you how nutritious a given product is "compared to products in the same category". So you could have, say, candy or frozen pizza with a NutriScore A and that would be just fine according to this system because it happens to be more nutritious than other candy/pizza. In other words, a product having a NutriScore of A doesn't mean the product is actually healthy or good for you.

I’m in Colombia right now and they actually have a great food labeling system. It just warns you if a product contains too much sugar, salt, additives etc, without trying to score. Whereas the European labels give you a false sense that everything is nutritious.

Who or what defines what is "too much" of any ingredient? Isn't that a scoring system too?

European NutriScore "assigns products a rating letter from A (best) to E (worst), with associated colors from green to red. High content of fruits and vegetables, fibers, protein and healthy oils (rapeseed, walnut and olive oils) per 100 g of food product promote a preferable score, while high content of energy, sugar, saturated fatty acids, and sodium per 100 g promote a detrimental score." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutri-Score

> Who or what defines what is "too much" of any ingredient?

Nutritionists.

Labels on processed food products go in the style of "Contains an excess of sodium", "Contains an excess of sugar", and so on.

So is it useless or useful? You write one but then describe the other (compared to other products in the same category seems value add for sure)

That sounds useful. Consumers most likely choose the food they want to eat by type, being able to spot the healthier options within a category sounds like it would help me in the supermarket.

We have a traffic light system, pretty useful. But when all items in a category are bad for you, and you know it, them all having red lights doesn't help much.

I'd certainly try alternatives that are marginally healthier, if that's true generally then it puts some pressure on food industry to move to healthier choices.

Then you should support the Free Software Europe's "Public Money, Public Code" campaign: https://publiccode.eu/en/

Yeah, investing it in bitcoin sure beats selling the power to India at bargain bin prices during summer time only to have to buy it back in winter time at premium rates. I think this really shows his majesty's wisdom and ability to think ahead (iiuc it was his decision to start mining bitcoins using green energy).