This seems to be focused on Python, but for all the TS devs out there, what you'll see will be implicit `any` errors. Quick word of warning on having LLMs fix those - they love to use explicit `any`s or perform `as any` casts. This makes the lint error disappear, but keeps the actual logic bug in the code.
Even if you ask it not to use any at all, it'll cast the type to `unknown` and "narrow" it by performing checks. The problem is that this may be syntactically correct but completely meaningless, since it'll narrow it down to a type that doesn't exist.
The biggest problem here is that all of these are valid code patterns, but LLMs tend to abuse them more than using it correctly.
Default linting in quasarsjs doesn't like unnecessary casts, or using 'any' types - AI generally then fixes it...in varying degrees of effectiveness - sometimes properly, sometimes with horrific type abominations.
There's an easy shortcut in the second level past the climb on the pink pipe and before you climb the ramp where you can jump to the semi-circle on the lower platform on the other side. Love it!
This section in particular piques my interest. I never found this confusing, since the change in HEAD is just representative of the order of operations (in rebase, you are setting the current commits "on top" of the commit you are rebasing onto, etc). This feels like what is confusing isn't really HEAD itself, it's a fundamental understanding of the git model?
I feel like folks using git without understanding the basics of what it does is what leads people astray? If so, why isn't this part of our basic training as engineers who use git?
Could rule out certain things. If they have more heart attacks on Sunday, then it would make it more likely that the association is "first day of the work week," as opposed to something like "first day of trading on international markets" (only Monday).
Just searched for Docker Swarm, and got [0] one "People also ask" card, one section for images, some related searched, and a button that says "More Results" that doesn't work. Moreover, the formatting of the CSS in the footer also looks weird. Seems like there's definitely been some issue with the deployment.
Edit: using brave and chrome on an Intel Mac, same results for both.
Oh wow, we're building something very similar to this. We were literally just filling up the YC form for S23 too haha. I may be a bit biased, but I think this is an excellent idea, and it can change the way testing works for backend services. We were inspired by Meticulous, too! Hope we can learn from y'all as well :)
Ok so in general I'd chalk this up to being disinterested, but I think this is relevant for a product meant for people with ADHD:
After a couple pages of choices, I was met with a screen with options A through K, and I instantly closed the tab. I didn't even read what it was asking. I realised that this may literally be ADHD like behaviour, so I opened it back up again, but it was still quite overwhelming and it took conscious effort to read through the form. I think this is just because I'm used to just entering my email and password, or using social logins, so filling the form seemed to be a substantial point of friction (even though I realise how it could be useful)
I'm unsure if I have ADHD, and it's never been a problem for me, but I sure do have a short attention span haha
This is really valuable feedback for us as we've iterated on that form with the ADHD community for a while and actually that exact question you're talking about is one that we've debated and changed a few times. I really appreciate your feedback here, let us revisit our notes on that question again, we'll continue to weigh the pros and cons here...
I personally believe from a UX perspective when you can make things simpler for people with ADHD, you make it simpler for all! Basically the premise of docusign :)
Even if you ask it not to use any at all, it'll cast the type to `unknown` and "narrow" it by performing checks. The problem is that this may be syntactically correct but completely meaningless, since it'll narrow it down to a type that doesn't exist.
The biggest problem here is that all of these are valid code patterns, but LLMs tend to abuse them more than using it correctly.