pull down to refresh

And I see the difference

I think I even see the difference in the bugs:

This is clearly an LLM bug, right? I don't think a human would write code that could cause a bug like this. It's a funny one, but I don't think it was intentional. It makes me wonder about the rest of the code, though.

/cc @k00b

Nah, here's an LLM bug: https://github.com/postcss/postcss/pull/2119/changes/22cb61b7e893a4ffe762e62d830808b6bddd956e - see it?

I spotted it in the diff when I was doing dep upgrades: #3189 but I misclassified the impact and I didn't see the problem during testing because I didn't test multi-paragraph posts: So after merge, @SimpleStacker found it in the live env: #1556331

So that's on me being not precise enough in testing and misinterpreting the sass integration, double-whammy opti-fuckup.

the rest of the code

In general, SN 1st party code is carefully engineered, more than what I can dry-eyed say about what I'm seeing in the npm ecosystem in general lately, including some of the SN deps. I spend a lot of time validating if there is impact to new bugs introduced in bugfixes. Luckily, most of the time, like for example some of the shit npmsec puked out last night that then contains new bugs in a dotdot release, is pre-empted by measures taken in the code / config to disable some nextjs features that no one should ever use to begin with, and thus safe.

But, sometimes it's pretty complex, and fuckups, like mine, can happen.

reply
116 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 9 Sep

It's intentional. I thought it was cute.

https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/blob/d4aaf0ac28e3a1cd2b2b6ed0fbd3647c0e1a5422/wallets/client/components/balance/text.js#L26

It makes me wonder about the rest of the code, though.

lol

reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 9 Sep

It's def cute!

reply