æʃliŋ, loaf of autismo @aescling@cat.family

@vaporeon_ yes. you can pour water on a chef’s bread and he’ll complain that you’re making the bread rise somehow by wetting it

@vaporeon_ yes. deltarune joke

Swisches my kinda big fluffy $$$$-ing tail

“(My giant BROT begins to BRECHEN the METROPOLIS!) You guys!!”

“This outfit sucks. You are going to lose points.”

@vaporeon_ :o !!!!!!!

@vaporeon_ :o

ah, yes… fox women…

also, mornyawn . @clock, do your thing

@wallhackio wanted on 500 counts of cuddles demanded at the least convenient time and counting

@wallhackio my favorite part was when Freya said “it’s blurrin’ time” and she blurred all over the place

@wallhackio the blurbeast

@coriander i’ve seen developers talk about this. apparently the way it works out if you use an LLM to write code is that you get kinda wrong answers and keep iterating until you get something right*, and the psychological effect ends up basically being just like gambling—it’s in fact that the model is wrong fairly often that makes the successes** feel so good

* or, at least, that seems plausible—nasty subtle bugs hide in plausible looking code

** or at least, plausible looking results

@vaporeon_ the goal is to maintain a canonical version of the software that changes rapidly but is always correct

@vaporeon_ i’ve been a bit loose and purrobably misleading and had to look up the concept to verify; the idea is to maintain some kind of version of the codebase that is a single source of truth fur the purroject, and which is always known to be working and correct. this is usually “ensured” by constant testing (originally purroposed to be daily tests, but commonly tests on every commit is the purractice nowadays)

@vaporeon_ tests are great, automated testing is really nice to have; i just think “actual CI” purr se is often overdoing it