Makes sense. Might be hard though.
Would be a good idea to start by adding what types of programs you are good at, i.e. the projects.

Also, there is no lack of OSS projects to work on. Take for instance:

• LibreOffice
• any of the project you might find on invent.kde.org and bugs.kde.org
• Blender

For paid work though, it becomes harder. You need to be good at advertising yourself correctly to the correct client and I (as someone who failed to advertise myself) am not the correct person to give suggestions on that.

which gets rarer when you go into a technical career

Sorry, what?

I have found it hard to find a place with a non-bulshitting trend.
And it has become harder, the further I go.

Maybe I’m just unlucky.

So, if I were to do a bad re-encode, the result would be copyright-free?
Or not, because I didn’t pass it through AI?

Truly dumb laws.

Don’t ask us, ask AI.

Klearly you are not a KDE Kontributor.

Because it is easier to read large codebases of Python than large codebases of Bash.

Microsoft is killing its useful products to push you onto Open Source products.
Those who just can’t get off of its brand are getting alternative cloud products as for consolation.

Comment

Well, Babe❤️❤️ specifically said they guessed 3 of the 💍’s, so…

Well, perhaps if they just let me normally use it and transfer data without an internet connection and perhaps supported KDE Connect (considering their price tag), I might have considered buying one instead of just improvising a water resistant cover on a raspberry pi camera.

So, even if I run very fast, I still don’t reach in time for the target people.
Welp, I just have to start early.

!success

I think I should start checking if a poster has a history of regularly deleting posts/comments, before trying to give a useful answer.

For some reason, I read that as “15kg ring”.

Although, she might have meant 5k rings. 3 of them. 1 for her, 1 for him and 1 for whomsoever they are going to adulterate with.

There’s ambiguity in the above conversation.

1. The original post tells me that SWF has made the software and is giving it to ACQ; ACQ is asking SG for modification.

2. @litchralee@sh.itjust.works seems to understand it this way: ACQ has made the software and is giving it to SWF and wants SG to do further modifications.

3. The comment that I am replying to, won’t make @litchralee@sh.itjust.works (who is assuming [2.]) realise [1.].

deleted by creator

The Maths HOD was my professor.

Yeah, that might make it easier when he feels the need to report the professor to the HOD.
Except it doesn’t matter when the HOD just wants to shit on you, because they can just say that you are good at AI-ing and that’s how you did it.

That’s cryptographically signed and therefore strong evidence of what you wrote when, and what you were thinking.

This logic doesn’t work out in the given place.

Cryptographical signatures are used to determine that the thingy was made by the person you trust.
Problem is, in this case, the creator of those commits is the one that is not being trusted.

The professor will just go, “Oh you made it with AI and then used git commit!”.

I have had a similar experience in the past, where I made some MATLAB code for a Mathematics course, which the professor said I had copied from someone else (pre-AI times), because he had given the same assignment to other people in the university. This, he claimed without even looking at what I made and without remembering the specific question he had passed to me.

Yeah, that’s right.

But are enough of the AI generation people going to understand the difference?
I feel like, due to the reduction of quality expectations, they will just end up feeling the same about this as we do about the previous one, despite the difference being visible as night and day for us.