You cannot know what verifications they use. I could argue the disabled textbox is some sort part of the verification process. Humans will click on it while bots won't.

Seems like a trivially simple verification to defeat.

You can defeat all client side verification by definition if you know what verification is run.

Wind and solar are not "dependent" on natural gas plants. You can observe this quite well by simply building a wind or solar plant, connect a battery and a load. It works and it works well.

Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet. When renewable generation is not sufficient, the difference is made up with generation from fossil-fueled thermal plants. But the existence of thermal power plants shouldn't be confused with any form of technical reliance on them. 100% renewable grids are inherently possible. If only, because you can simply enlarge grids geographically to the point that wind and solar production averages out. In combination with planned overcapacity (you can simply "switch off" wind and solar if you don't need generation), you strictly speaking don't even need batteries. It's just much more economical.

>Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet.

When will it make sense for many countries? Because the difference between peak production and a winter dip for germany in let's say Berlin is enormous.

First of all there is no alternative that makes sense. Climate change is real and its consequences are more expensive and catastrophic than any trade-offs we’ll have to make for a 100% renewable grid.

The good news is that going 100% renewable is probably less onerous than most people expect. If we get our act together politically, we can easily build the grids, generation, storage and intelligent loads required. With the exception of a few industrial processes, the technology is already existing and economically viable, but it also gets better and cheaper every year.

I never get why people are so opposed to renewables. In the past (and apparently present), we have spent multiples of what we’d need for 100% renewables on stupid wars. Now we could transform our economy with dramatic positive consequences even if we ignore climate change completely (think air quality and corresponding public health concerns, as well as political risks associated with fossil fuels).

It will be one of the breakthrough developments of human civilization and unlock tremendous potential, but people are concerned with the aesthetics of windmills and bickering about minor subsidies, while there is literally an economic crisis going on because some ships with liquified dinosaurs on boats can’t get to their destination on time …

By that definition, nuclear is also “dependent on natural gas” because it’s a baseload power source that can’t dynamically follow demand.

You should be critical. If you made something, you should proof that it works. Especially in todays world. This article contains no proof that their work actually works.

Except that all of it is open source and you can go try it. So this is basically me saying "I made a really nice cake, here, try some" and you're plugging your ears and going "lalalala can't prove this cake is good, lalalala it's shit".

How can you say it's a -really- nice cake without ever having tasted it?

Remember you're grinding your anti-LLM axe against something a real person made, and that person read your comment.

Don't think it's fair to think any negative comment is from some anti-LLM-axe. I seriously gave you the benefit of the doubt, that was the whole reason I even looked further into your work.

It's no shame to be critical in todays world. Delivering proof is something that holds extra value and if I would create an article about the wonderful things I've created, I'd be extra sure to show it.

I looked at your clock project and when I saw that your updated version and improved version of your clock contained AI artifacts, I concluded that there's no proof of your work.

Sorry to have made that conclusion and I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Saying things like "there's no proof of your work" is the anti-LLM axe. Yes, it's all written by LLMs, and yes, it's all my work. Judge it on what it does and how well it works, not on whether the code looks like the code you would have written.

Is it your work? What did you bring to the table? Because if we're going to analyze design, then code is one function of that design.

For example, you talk about how the code is secure. How do you prove that it is secure?

The same way you prove your OSS code is secure.

People here see an LLM-assisted project and suddenly they've never written a bug in their life.

I cannot empirically prove that my OS is secure, because I haven't written it. I trust that the maintainers of my OS have done their due diligence in ensuring it is secure, because they take ownership over their work.

But when I write software, critical software that sits on a customer's device, I take ownership over the areas of code that I've written, because I can know what I've written. They may contain bugs or issues that I may need to fix, but at the time I can know that I tried to apply the best practices I was aware of.

So if I ask you the same thing, do you know if your software is secure? What architecture prevents someone from exfiltrating all of the account data from pine town? What best practices are applied here?

I didn't say OS, I said OSS. Open-source software.

Fair mistake on my end, I'm aware of what OSS means but my eyes will have a tendency to skip a letter or two. The same argument applies; because if I write something and release it to the OSS community there's going to be an expectation that A) I know how it works deeply and B) I know if it's reasonably secure when it's dealing with personal data. They can verify this by looking at the code, independently.

But if the code is unreadable and I can't make a valid argument for my software, what's left?

Are you saying you know your code has exactly zero bugs because you wrote it? That's obviously absurd, so what you're really saying is "I'm fairly familiar with all the edge cases and I'm sure that my code has very few issues", which is the same thing I say.

Regardless, though, this argument is a bit like tilting at windmills. Software development has changed, it's never going back, and no matter how many looms you smash, the question now is "how do we make LLM-generated code safer/better/faster/more maintainable", not "how do we put the genie back in the bottle?".

Also I will give myself credit for using three analogies in two sentences.

You're missing the point. I don't care who wrote it, I want to know if it works.

Also, you didn't address my remarks about your clock. Can you can show me a picture of it working in action?

But you didn't say anything about wanting to know how it works, your comment was:

> The article's content doesn't match his apps quality. They don't bring any value. His clock looks completely AI generated.

I don't understand your point about proof. After more than 120 open-source projects, you think I'm lying about the fact that my clock works? All the tens of projects I've written up on my site over decades, you latch on to the one I haven't published yet as some sort of proof that I'm lying? I really don't understand what your point is.

Here: https://immich.home.stavros.io/share/_k403I3s3cON-8oL5yP_QXY...

It's an advertisement mate.

LLM's keep messing up even on a plain Laravel codebase..

I rather have the fingerprint button!

I had a Sony Xperia Z1 mini, that was close to the size of a SE but had double the battery lifetime.

I did downgrade back to my SE (from iPhone 16). Big selling point (aside from its size and rounded corners) is the physical button with fingerprint. I missed that even more than I disliked carrying a big phone around.

Piracy = Piracy. Stop doing mental gymnastics to justify stealing. If you rip a movie and put it up on the internet, it's not preservation, it's piracy.

Even if you disagree with copyright infringement, it's not the same as stealing.

Patently false, just look as far as Netflix taking down exclusive shows and movies from their catalog. You would literally not be able to watch them anymore if not for folks putting them up online.

Copyright infringement is not stealing. It falls under no theft laws.

It may be a crime in certain situations (most notably, non-commercial infringement is almost never a crime unless done prior to a work's initial publication, but rather a civil issue).