> I understand that the 'updating the part of the page that's changed' functionality is now dramatically slower, more unresponsive, and less reliable than the 'reload the entire thing' approach was, and it feels like browsing the site via Citrix over dial-up half the time, but look, sacrifices have to be made in the name of making things better even if the sacrifice is that things get worse instead.
FWIW, I find the new React-based diff viewer worse than the old server-rendered page. I disabled the preview for this reason. It does have some nice features but overall it feels more finicky. I would think that in theory this should be better at handling large diffs but I'm not sure that that's the case, and at least the UX feels more choppy.
That's financialization at play. When you render and syntax highlight the diff on the server, Github pays the cost, if you do it on the client side, the cost is paid by the client. At Github's scale it's probably a large enough of a difference that they decided the reduced customer experience is worth it.
Yeah... I bought the regular version a few months before the bigger one was announced. Now I kinda want it but can't really justify it at this point. It's a cool product though and a lot of the code is open source or has open source alternatives (e.g. the official backend is not but they have sponsored the development of open source alternatives so that if they go out of business or something you can host your own backend).
That's basically MOOCs, but those kinda fizzled out. It's tough to actually stay focused for a full-length university-level course outside of a university environment IMO, especially if you're working and have a family, etc.
(I mean, I have no idea how Coursera/edX/etc are doing behind the scenes, but it doesn't seem like people talk about them the way they used to ~10 years ago.)
They're still around and offering new online courses. I hope they don't have any problems to keep afloat, because they do offer useful material at the very least.
I agree it's hard, but I think it's because initially the lecturers were involved in the online community, which can be tiring and unrewarding even if you don't have other obligations.
I think the courses should have purely standalone material that lecturers can publish, earn extra money, and refresh the content when it makes sense. Maybe platform moderators could help with some questions or grading, but it's even easier to have chatbot support for that nowadays. Also, platforms really need to improve.
So, I think the problem with MOOCs has been the execution, not the concept itself.
Most MOOCs are venture funded companies not lifestyle business so they will not likely do sensible user friendly things. They just need to somehow show investors that hyper growth will happen. (Doesn't seem like though that it did happen)
Most of the MOOCs were also watered down versions of a real course to attempt to make them accessible to a larger audience (e.g. the Stanford Coursera Machine Learning course that didn't want to assume any calculus or linear algebra background), which made them into more of a pointless brand advertisement than an actual learning resource.
I understand what you mean, but I disagree it's mostly or pure branding.
I'd argue that even watered down versions can be useful as a bridge to more advanced courses and material, provided you have access to both.
Personally, I benefited from that ML course by Andrew Ng, because I got the vocabulary and introductory math knowledge to proceed to courses and textbooks on linear algebra. It wasn't the only thing that helped, sure, but it helped.
There were also other STEM and non-STEM MOOCs which brought me free knowledge I probably would've never pursued or paid for otherwise.
They are mostly used for professional courses. Learning python, java, gitlab runners, micro services with NodeJS, project management and things like that
So does that mean that if you "opt out", Google _won't_ use your code for training, even on a personal/free plan?
### 1. Is my code, including prompts and answers, used to train Google's models?
This depends entirely on the type of auth method you use.
- *Auth method 1:* Yes. When you use your personal Google account, the Gemini Code Assist Privacy Notice for Individuals applies. Under this notice, your *prompts, answers, and related code are collected* and may be used to improve Google's products, which includes model training.
### 2. What are "Usage Statistics" and what does the opt-out control?
The "Usage Statistics" setting is the single control for all optional data collection in the Gemini CLI. The data it collects depends on your account type:
- *Auth method 1:* When enabled, this setting allows Google to collect both anonymous telemetry (like commands run and performance metrics) and *your prompts and answers* for model improvement.
Does this mean that for a personal account, your data is always "collected", but the opt out may prevent your data from being used for training? Also, the question was about "code", but this addresses only addresses "prompts and answers". Is code covered under prompts? The first FAQ lists "*prompts, answers, and related code are collected*" as separate items so it's still not clear what happens to code and if there's a way to opt out from your code being used for model training IMO.
Systemd didn't create this problem. But it solves the issue of distributions shipping config files as part of packages and then on every package upgrade having to reconcile between the distribution's config and your modifications. Now with the drop in system you don't need to do that.
I am not an expert but I think in general systemd has a lot of complexity but it's to handle existing issues in a better way. Some of the older init systems might be simpler to describe or get started but lead to more confusing situations in the long run.
There are no Chrome builds for Linux on ARM, for instance. (There might be Chromium builds but that won't have the proprietary Google stuff like account sync.)
I tend to agree, but then I wonder what we would call language server protocol additions to editors like Emacs/Vim. Or even Visual Studio Code, for that matter.
I don't think they were being serious.
reply