I'm not the parent but if you know you want to merge a PR "within a few seconds" then you're likely to be merging in bad changes.

If you had left it at know you want to reject a PR within a few seconds, that'd be fine.

Although with safety critical systems I'd probably want each contributor to have some experience in the field too.

Sounds like you misunderstood. They didn't say they are merging PRs after a few seconds. Just that the difference between a good one and a bad is often obvious after a few seconds. Edit: typos

Exactly, every PR starts with:

1. What’s the goal of this PR and how does it further our project’s goals?

2. Is this vaguely the correct implementation?

Evaluating those two takes a few seconds. Beyond that, yes it takes a while to review and merge even a few line diff.

I'm not sure there are many ways to interpret "I know whether I want to merge a PR within a few seconds".

Yet I also agree with GP.

"*WANT* to close or *WANT* to merge". Not WILL close or WILL merge.

You look at the PR and you know just by looking at it for a few seconds if it looks off or not.

Looks off -> "Want to close"

Write a polite response and close the issue.

Doesn't look off -> "Want to merge"

If we want to merge it, then of course you look at it more closely. Or label it and move on with the triage.

Yes but your house has to burn down and you have to simultaneously lose your memory.

If your house and PC burn, restore from online backup.

If your brain burns, spouse restores from vault.

This assumes having a spouse.

Sure... if you don't have a spouse, leave it with a sibling. I put my Bitcoin key in my brother's safe. And if you don't have a sibling or parent or best friend, you can usually rent a locker at a bank.

s/spouse/executor/

Is Gerrit the same as Critique?

It's a descendant of critique's predecessor (Mondrian)

https://www.gerritcodereview.com/about.html

I'm quite happy to NOT have exceptions. I think they're a mistake as a language feature. What we need is first -class support for returning errors and propagating them, like what zig does. The next best thing are those RETURN macros that Google uses.

Isn't that equivalent to exceptions but more verbose and slower?

"first-class support for returning errors and propagating them" certainly sounds like exceptions! In fact, the compiler can even emit special tables that let the runtime completely skip over stack frames that don't need to do any cleanup during that propagation step!

Some languages have even innovated new kinds of exceptions that you can throw but that you are admonished should almost certainly never be caught.

Unfortunately even this is also better for tool support, a problem that using a bunch of macros solves. It's cool and good when a variable gets declared inside the guts of some macro expansion (and--critically--escapes those guts).

Its not the same. You have to explicitly declare the errors and if you want to ignore/propagate them, you have to do so explicitly as well.

You cant invoke a function and pretend it'll never fail.

Also, try/catch with long try blocks and a the error handling at the very end is just bad. Which of the statements in the try is throwing? Even multiple perhaps? Each should be handled individually and immediately

Deliberately more verbose. Not sure how it'd be slower. And only a tiny bit more verbose if the language has nice keywords/syntax for you to use. The point is you want to be explicit when you're choosing to ignore an error.

Having to support legacy code is a bummer. /s

Zig remains to be seen how market relevant it turns out to be.

Ya, we don't know yet. Still sitting on zig but I like what I see so far.

Why would you need to change your address at all? That's part of the card details. No other payment system does that!

Not the address, but the phone number has a bug I run into it occasionally. Some merchants support the +1 country code, some are local US only and don’t expect it. Safari’s auto-fill figures this out when filling the form. But then I go to Apple Pay, an it replaces the phone number with a 1 at the beginning and drops the last number, then I get an error that something is wrong. Initially took me a while to realize what was happening and that you can edit the number in the Apple Pay overlay before it applies it to the order. Just a bit annoying

It changes the shipping address, not the billing address.

And yeah, I do tap it to change what card to use. "Every single time."

Better than the one that ships with Jetbrains?

I did buy their $100/yr AI but its about to run out.

Definitely better. Next edit makes a difference. But it is not free, I think I pay $10/month.

Oh, i thought you were talking about this self hosted 1.5B model. You must be talking about the full model as a service?

Right, it needs to be fixed at the model level.

I'm not sure if that's possible either but I'm thinking a good start would be to separate the "instructions" prompt from the "data" and do the entire training on this two-channel system.

I think i found something even better. I'm just adjacent to the big money maker. We keep folks on the page a little longer but don't need to concern ourselves with revenue and ads. Just make it good so folks stick around but important enough that we won't get axed.

This is why we need more old timers in charge. We've been around the block and seen how all these things play out already.

Now they just promote the youngsters that say the word AI a lot instead of those of us who actually care about the craft.

If you want it to be accurate to the penny, you kinda do, no?

If you transfer 50k from one account to another and want to check your networth before the money comes back in, summing your balances won't help you.

I think this is besides the point though, I suspect OP wants to track networth over time.