The reason why we're not keeping lists of which people believe what religion, is because such lists were extremely useful to the nazis in WW2 when exterminating Jewish people.

> Think Orthodox Jews

Pretty sure they would remember why this is the case.

> Regulating a sacred scroll like a database table seems wrong.

There is actually no perceivable or material difference between something that is considered "sacred" and that which is not. It really hinges on whether some subset of some splinter of some religion considers it so.

But, I'm not familiar with these cases you mention, I think there's some details left out that should matter. The really weird thing to me, is that a sports club can keep a list of members easily (yes they need to abide by the GDPR but it's not hard), and if somehow a "religious group" can't manage that level of organization, I don't think their opinion on what objects are considered "sacred" should count for much, either.

Another issue is that "religious groups" can have a different opinion of who are their members and who they get to keep data on, and it doesn't matter whether those records are "sacred" or not, according to the GDPR it is not the "religious group", but the people whose data is being kept whose opinion counts. It would be ridiculous otherwise. I had to email a Church to stop tracking me (which happens if you're baptized as a baby), and that should be my choice, it would be insane if they could claim "yeah tough luck, but our records are sacred".

I’m thinking more paper and scrolls.

Not to mention things like tombstones or the occasional name carved into buildings - usually related to donors.

The media matters: an email list, a scroll, a name carved into stone, and a tattoo are quite different things.

I feel uncomfortable drawing clear lines, but I feel equally uncomfortable with other people drawing clear lines.

> There is actually no perceivable or material difference between something that is considered "sacred" and that which is not. It really hinges on whether some subset of some splinter of some religion considers it so.

What? To many people, the Bible is just a book. To Christians its sacred. This doesn't mean it's immutable (the original Bible wasn't in English after all), it just means it's important to them.

For the records, the records themselves could be sacred, but the practical implications of them are not sacred. But if Catholics have a sacred record of everyone who had been baptized at a church, then that should be different from their mailing list. God did not instruct the chrich to email everyone who was ever baptized there. Plus, at some point in the church's age, there will be more dead people on the list of people who were baptized than alive people. It doesn't make sense to send an email blast to more dead people than alive, so they must trim the mailing list every so often.

Tracking you in what ways?

Thanks.

> Well, my personal position is "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

You got that line from somewhere else. It was never intended to be taken literally, as should be obvious when you try to state its meaning in your own words.

If there actually were dogs on the Internet, we likely wouldn't be accepting their PRs either.

Nor is it commonly accepted that dogs should enjoy equal rights to humans. So what are you even trying to say here?

Just because someone dressed up three computer programs in a trench coat doesn't suddenly make people have to join in on the pretend game.

I also think we have a moral obligation to treat animals right, and to compare that to computer programs (but they talk!!) just because they talk?

>what are you even trying to say here?

To judge [online] contributions by their quality, not the immutable characteristics of their source.

Or as Crabby put it:

>The chance to be judged by what I create, not by what I am.

https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post...

You are thinking too one-dimensional.

The goal of these easy beginner friendly issues was to get new contributors which can learn the ropes and hopefully contribute and engineer larger things.

Of course these beginner friendly issues are perfect for current AI.

The goal of this issue was not to get it fixed by any means possible, it was to get new people interested and contributing.

You are already arguing for a future where an AI could conceivably completely replace a human in software development. I do not see this future here yet.

> They're awful people because they are drug addicts

what the hell man, that is an awful thing to say, have some compassion

> our lives

if "our" is to mean people with such an awful opinion about addiction, then I wish it on you

> The confidence of being able to dive into an unknown codebase and becoming productive immediately?

I don't think there's any public evidence of this happening, except for the debacles with LLM-generated pull requests (which is evidence against, not for this happening).

I could be wrong, feel free to cite anything.

I echo your experience and the best use I've found is, to have it generate that first implementation which is often surprisingly good, and then take it manually from there, because getting an LLM to fix its own mistakes is an exercise in frustration ...

I treat it like a little jump off platform, for my own initial velocity, any more and it goes off the rails like you describe

had to scroll far to find the problem description

> AHC058, held on December 14, 2025, was conducted over a 4-hour competition window. The problem involved a setting where participants could produce machines with hierarchical relationships, such as multiple types of “apple-producing machines” and “machines that build those machines.” The objective was to construct an efficient production planning algorithm by determining which types and hierarchies of machines to upgrade and in what specific order.

... so not a CRUD app but it beat humans at Cookie Clicker? :-)

It's almost 2026 and GENUARY emerges! GENUARY is an artificially generated month of time where we build code that makes beautiful things.

It’s happening during the month of January 2026, and everybody is invited!

Over the 744 hours of January, for every 24 hours there will be one prompt for your code art.

You don’t have to follow the prompt exactly. Or even at all. You can do all of them, or most of them. But, y’know, we put effort into this.

You can use any language, framework or medium. Feel free to use your own brain or a simulacrum of everybody else’s.

At least when astronomers fake the colours on space pictures, they end up looking prettier than the original :) :)

> What if my answer, trying to improve issues from within, is not good enough?

lol, did you?

Related, GPT refuses to identify screenshots from movies or TV series.

Not for any particular reason, it flat out refuses. I asked it whether it could describe the picture for me in as much detail as possible, and it said it could do that. I asked it whether it could identify a movie or TV series by description of a particular scene, and it said it could do that, but that if I'd ever try or ask it to do both, it wouldn't do that cause it'd be circumvention of its guide lines! -- No it doesn't quite make sense, but to me it does seem quite indicative of a hard-coded limitation/refusal, because it is clearly able to do the sub tasks. I don't think the ability to identify scenes from a movie or TV show is illegal or even immoral, but I can imagine why they would hard code this refusal, because it'd make it easier to show it was trained on copyrighted material?