Related:

This is in a PR where Shougo, another long-time contributor, communicates entirely in walls of unparseable AI slop text: https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/19413

Thank you for the detailed feedback! I’ve addressed all the issues:

Thank you for the feedback! I agree that following the Vim 8+ naming convention makes sense.

Thank you for the feedback on naming!

Thanks for the suggestion! After thinking about this more, I believe repeat_set() / repeat_get() is the right choice:

Thank you for the feedback. A brief clarification.

https://hachyderm.io/@AndrewRadev/116176001750596207

@[email protected]

  • gaiety@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    21·
    21 hours ago

    This is super cool!

    Did want to offer one language critique, it’s easy to jump to the word human as the opposite of AI-made, but there are a lot of therians and adjacent entities in the software engineering space. It would be wonderful to find language that is a pro-“human” policy that avoids that word and instead focuses on people of all sorts of identities so as not to be othering.

    Sounds strange to some I’m sure, but this has been coming up more and more with coworkers I’ve had across several companies. It’s kind of like moving from “he or she” to “they”, a great example is the writings of beeps a prominent software engineer on the GOV.UK site and its accessibility https://beeps.website/about/nonhuman/

    Regardless if any changes are made thanks for reading and your policy writeup, again very cool :D

    • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
      2·
      16 hours ago

      I would be fine to include more inclusive language, except that I want to be in line with the wording the US Copyright Office uses, as a major goal of this policy is to ensure that every contribution is copyrightable. They specifically use the word human, and go so far as to say that it is only human authorship that can make something copyrightable.

      There was a landmark case where a monkey took a selfie, and the courts decided that the picture could not be copyrighted. In the court’s decision, again, it’s specifically “human” authorship that was the requirement for copyright.

      The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.

      …

      Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.

      - https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf

      In my opinion, “person” would be a better term to use, since the personhood of the author is really what matters, but since this is meant to provide legal protection, I’m pushed toward the term “human”. Also, “person” could be confused with the concept of a “legal person”, which includes corporations. A corporation itself cannot be an author, but it can own copyrights.

      Maybe I should add this to a portion near the bottom of the page to provide the reasoning behind sticking to the term, despite the desire to be inclusive.