Seconding this. Revelation happens subtly, often far removed from what you might later unpick as its "primary source". Immediate interpretation tend to be plastic and shallow.

I quit a job 8 years ago because I learned my code had been deployed inside missiles. Many of my colleagues had similar red lines. I doubt many would now.

Aye, I know. Don't get me wrong, I knew that the majority of devs have always been worse than useless, but it's been disconcerting to see quite how much value folk are getting out of agents for problems that have been solved for decades.

Arguably this solution is "better" because you don't even really need to understand that you have specific problems to have the agent solve them for you, but I fail to see the point of keeping these people employed in that case. If you haven't been able to solve your own workflow issues up until now I have zero trust in you being able to solve business problems.

> Q: "Isn't it your job as an open-source maintainer/developer to foster a welcoming community?"

The answer to this implies that the requirement to be welcoming only applies to humans, but even in this hostile and sarcastic document, it doesn't go far enough.

Open source maintainers can be cruel, malicious, arbitrary, whatever they want. They own the project, there is no job requirements, you have no recourse. Suck it up, fork the thing, or leave.

... you know what. Whilst I suspect the quality of these translations is probably not great. Fair play this is a valid example.