It's very clear what's happening: they're passing it through a writing tool that has an "Auto-improve" feature the users click. This would do the naive, pre-LLM, trick of taking "repetitive" vocabulary and varying it using synonyms.
I assume it is due to machine translation? I do not see mentions of "failure" at all, which would be expected to exist if it was to increase variety.
I think (heard) some used to translate an article back and forth a few times to get a "new" article, but maybe it could have been some kind of "paraphrasing" software like you describe (but for avoiding plagiarism detection rather than repetitions).
If you’re using Git and you branch off ‘stable’, you won’t be able to merge to ‘trunk’ unless you rebase to pick up all of its changes. If a commit were to be reverted in the trunk now you need to revert it from all PRs as well. In the end, it’s equivalent to having one branch.
It's not all that strange: it's basically how version control worked before everybody switched to git. Anybody still on SVN is basically using this exact development model.
> If you’re using Git and you branch off ‘stable’, you won’t be able to merge to ‘trunk’ unless you rebase to pick up all of its changes.
Yeah, so you just do that. To be clear: most people would be doing their work on trunk. When I say "checkout stable" I mean "checkout stable if you need to start from something that passes CI". In the case where trunk passes CI or was recently passing CI this is basically the same as checking out trunk.
> If a commit were to be reverted in the trunk now you need to revert it from all PRs as well.
Most people push straight into trunk, no PRs needed. For the cases where you need PRs, reverting something in trunk won't affect them: `git revert` adds a new commit just like any other change.
If by "revert" what you actually meant was rolling back trunk to an earlier commit: don't do that.
Thank you. This sounds like a great approach! I’ve also been surprised at the mechanical nature that git resolves conflicts in, and the loss of intent when auto-merging.
Is this a non-limited version? After finishing a ripple, it could really use a "Random" button that lets you easily continue with another ripple, just so people can directly keep going.
The project is just a web backend. I give Claude Code grunt work tasks. Things like "make X operation also return Y data" or "create Z new model + CRUD operations". Also asking it to implement well-known patterns like denouncing or caching for an existing operation works well.
My app builds and runs fine on Termux, so my CLAUDE.md says to always run unit tests after making changes. So I punch in a request, close my phone for a bit, then check back later and review the diff. Usually takes one or two follow-up asks to get right, but since it always builds and passes tests, I never get complete garbage back.
There are some tasks that I never give it. Most of that is just intuition. Anything I need to understand deeply or care about the implementation of I do myself. And the app was originally hand-built by me, which I think is important - I would not trust CC to design the entire thing from scratch. It's much easier to review changes when you understand the overall architecture deeply.
There were unusual elements characteristic of the decay chain following a fission.
After a U-235 atom undergoes fission, one of the outcomes is it releases Barium and Krypton (and some neutrons), which then eventually decay to stable/semi-stable elements. If one of those stable elements is common in the deposit but otherwise rare naturally, it would point to a nuclear reaction having occurred.
Also note that the U-235 decay chain generally looks different from the decay chain following a fission reaction of U-235.
Yeah, I would say the y-axis range on charts should be set at "3-sigma likelihood of observation" thresholds. Not everything that's charted can be framed as sampling from a distribution, but the principle of manually setting chart ranges would nonetheless still apply.
For instance, if we're charting someone's body temperature, we would likely fix our y-axis to 80-110.
There's not much that an administration can do to impact the delays because they primarily are the result of statutory backlogs and demand. So, unless there is a significant change in the law or a significant drop in demand, these delays are likely to persist.
