RE: https://infosec.exchange/@JessTheUnstill/117439956914383391
Any cis woman who wants to be a great ally, this is how.
Just invite us to spaces that are totally normal for you and treat us totally normally... We really don't get to experience this much and it's life changing and lifting every time it does happen. Instant joy that then lasts for weeks after.
Everyone needs to see this and also acknowledge why reverse engineering is a super power.
Credit to https://instagram.com/ayoships
Guy reverses the dark patterns of mobile apps and publishes it, absolutely love it!
RE: https://furry.engineer/@Plan_A_to_Y/117414450272523760
this is the perfect metaphor to understand the distinction between AI doomer concerns versus AI skeptic concerns
One of the open source projects I used to (many years ago, so I am not really affected anymore) has recently decided to allow AI contributions. One of their arguments is that they judge submissions on quality, not tools used.
Back when I was an active contributor (to the project and maintainer of some other parts of the surrounding ecosystem), I got a lot of submissions that were bad.
The thing is, I absolutely loved getting these because they always came from super-enthusiastic junior people. Reviewing them and giving feedback often too much longer than implementing the feature myself. The same was usually true for the next contribution too. But that shifted over time. After a few months, I started getting patches where I didn’t find anything beyond the cosmetic that I wanted to change.
Going back further, I was one of those people when I started contributing.
Measured as code contributions over the short term, maintainers working with submitters of poor-quality PRs is a waste of time. You’re taking time away from writing code to do something that produces code more slowly.
Measured over the long term, the results are very different. Far more code in that project and closely related parts of the ecosystem has been written by people who I mentored when they came along with some bad code than by me.
It’s never a waste of my time to turn an enthusiastic and incompetent contributor into an enthusiastic and competent contributor, it’s an absolutely critical part of building a healthy project. I wouldn’t have got nearly as much out of F/OSS on a personal level if I hadn’t encountered a lot of people with the same opinion when I was one of the enthusiastic and incompetent newcomers.
But LLMs are not like that. If I spend time reviewing LLM-generated code when it would have been faster to write it myself (which, to be clear, is the case on 100% of LLM-submitted PRs I’ve seen so far), then that’s just a time sink. It’s also taking away time I could be spending helping new contributors who want to actually improve, rather than just take the review comments, feed them into an opaque system, and give me back the results.
well I guess these days I'm not as in as I used to be due to time, energy, and interest constraints, but the people are definitely the reason I'm not entirely gone
> I think that many people go to Rust for the promise of good technology, and actually stay for the people.
from @blyxyas https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2026/09/21/maintainer-spotlight-alejandra-gonzalez-blyxyas/
it's true!! me too!!
Today Igalia turns 25.
In September 2001, ten engineers from the University of A Coruña started a company with no outside investors, no managers, and no intention of ever appointing any.
There are now close to 200 of us, spread across the world. The arrangement has not changed: no managers, no shareholders, and everything we build left where anyone can use it.
Here is to the next twenty-five.
https://igalia.com/2026/09/21/Twenty-Five-Years-Upstream.html
Here it is, now I *do* have a list!
Weird little guys of FOSS:
https://drewdevault.com/weird-guys/
We lowered the ticket prices for RustWeek!
Individual tickets are now 199 instead of 249 euro. ✨
Additionally, we added a checkbox for an extra 100 euro discount, bringing the ticket price to just 99 euros for those who can't afford the full price. 💛
This is a fun clock: the hours, minutes and seconds marks are on circles of increasing radius in the hyperbolic plane, and there's only one hand. You can find the different markings by moving around the plane.
for me it's almost entirely point (3), which i think is the source of a lot of disconnect with some of my peers. i don't think my job security got any less (more, if anything) plus i'm confident i can outperform genAI jockeys if it comes to that; and i don't think writing code is any more intellectually special than doing woodworking or something. no, it's mostly that these peers participate in the creation of a world that i do not want to live in. and that is a major trust issue.
“The thing that made open source maintenance joyful was that someone cared enough about your work to try to improve it. You mentored them. They learned. The code got better. The community grew. That's the social contract.
AI slop doesn't add work. It replaces human connection with mechanized noise.”
https://ryancheley.com/2026/08/17/what-if-maintainer-burnout-isn-t-burnout/
:boost_requested: hey everyone,
i am currently in amsterdam and my phone's usb port hat completely given up and it won't charge anymore
anyone know a trustworthy place i could get it replaced? it's kinda urgent, i leave on the 20th
Home server 500'ed earlier on uploading images, but I took this amazing tree full of eclipses last week during the eclipse :3 Taken at about 90% totality, roughly the maximum we got here in the Netherlands!
i love seeing creative qr code designs, so i made this guide explaining what tricks you can (and can't!) do with qr codes while still keeping them very much readable
have fun and make cool stuff!!
#rust / #rustlang users of fediverse: (Please retoot for visibility!)
Say you have a crate that was on an older edition (2015 / 2018 / etc), and you want to update it to the latest edition, which, at time of writing, is edition 2024 for Rust 1.85.0+. How would you do so? (and, if you haven't done such a thing before, how do you _imagine_ you will do it?)
Edit note: changed wording. This poll is not asking about the *correct* way to do it, but rather *how* you would do it! :)
Context: This came up in a language design discussion, where we were exploring whether we could make a _meaning change_ across an edition, which does not immediately create a compiler error/breakage in isolation if you bump the crate edition. I don't believe `cargo fix --edition` is something very apparent, so I don't think such a meaning change could happen, but the other side of the argument is that the meaning will be preserved if you _do_ run cargo fix before bumping your edition.
I give you "The Epic Gnome ❤️ KDE Handshake".
This is probably the silliest thing I ever commissioned, send some love to @trans_lykanthropie for drawing this. :neocat_heart:
This is free for any personal use and for commercial use related to both Gnome and KDE depicting neither overtly negatively as long as the artist is mentioned.
@gnome :celeste_hearts_og_pride: @kde
Okay, we have a new contender for Most AI Thing to Ever Happen
1) July 25th: someone messes around with an LLM and posts a proof of the Collatz conjecture that does, in fact, verify in the theorem prover. (The AI use is not disclosed on the github page) https://github.com/xrchz/CollatzLean
2) July 26th: several serious bugs are posted in the theorem provers, that in principle could allow a false statement to be "proven" true. They're serious, yes, but no need for panic, because you're not going to blunder into accidentally exploiting the bugs while writing a proof, probably.
https://github.com/leanprover/lean-kernel-arena/pull/81
3) July 28th: someone who was right to be very skeptical of the Collatz proof, and had the expertise to study it with a fine-toothed comb, discovered it was exploiting a bug https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/14576
4) The "proof" turns out to be exploiting multiple similar but distinct bugs to pass different solver variants!
⚠️⚠️[IMPORTANT EDIT: it was later clarified that the person who originally posted the proof was already aware that it was buggy, and chose not to be clear about this up front, as a humorous way to file a bug. It's pretty clear from the discussion threads that plenty of qualified people did not immediately realize it was meant to be a bug report.]⚠️⚠️
5) the human who posted the proof acknowledges the AI use and claims they did not knowingly point it towards the bugs it exploited. https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean4/topic/Counterexample.20to.20the.20Lean.20Conjecture.20.28Soundness.20Bug.29/near/613135216
Note that the proof was posted shortly before the related bug reports were posted. It is an open question if the AI found people discussing the bugs shortly before they were formally posted and "decided" to exploit them, if the AI "knew about it" as a learned strategy from the training stage (putting every single "proof" it's ever made and ever will make into profound doubt), or if it's recently been repeatedly blundering into it by sheer stupidity and that's how people noticed the bug at about the same time.
Theorem provers aren't magic, and have bugs just like all other programs. They are tools to help us double-check our reasoning. When you skip the reasoning and ask an AI to "prove" something for you that's over your head, you're entering an adversarial pact with the monkey-pawed Devil of Customer Satisfaction.
my initial source for investigating this myself: https://lipn.info/@mevenlennonbertrand/116997927457012577