ivorius

6 ms·

1.
by ivorius 3mo ago
Yea, I validated the scores on the places I know first-hand. I also spent a lot of time exploring and looking for suspicious gaps like areas without schools (which led to discovering Jedeschule instead of relying on OSM alone). Finally, I l
2.
by ivorius 3mo ago
Alright, I'll explore the options when I work on it next. Thank you for the feedback!
3.
by ivorius 3mo ago
Thanks! Unfortunately most of the data sources are Germany only. It would take a lot of research to find equivalents for the UK, as well as another round of fine tuning on the algorithms. That being said, I would love to see it too. It&#x27
4.
by ivorius 3mo ago
Oh, interesting. I usually don't spend much time zoomed out. Would highlighting the name while it's hovered help? I could also add a tab that lists the top spots in the current view frame.
5.
by ivorius 3mo ago
Thanks! What exactly would you use the ranked list for? You can zoom into the map (which should make hover less finnicky), compare two places (on the "Vergleich" tab), and the top ~5 places currently in view are highlighted with a
6.
Show HN: I computed livability for all of Germany by rent, commute, and QoL(wohnortatlas.de)
5 points by ivorius 3mo ago|11 comments
7.
by ivorius 3mo ago
I made a PR like that, but it was rejected by the community (for some valid reasons and some not so valid). https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/118681
8.
by ivorius 3mo ago
Unfortunately, only a single PR like this comes to mind. Most AI authors we've seen were identifiable mainly by overly verbose PR descriptions, meaningless code changes and copy-pasting more AI output when questioned.
9.
by ivorius 3mo ago
If people knew how to get AI to write terse, focused summaries, sure, that might help. I haven't seen many that do (well, ignoring the toupee fallacy). Though the most important aspect is that we need to know the motivation and thought
10.
by ivorius 3mo ago
Right. Reviewers still have the advantage of being able to spot AI text because it's often overtly different. I just meant to say that, if you prompt ai "what would a human be proud of having written this code" you'll ge
11.
by ivorius 3mo ago
AI is well-capable of fabricating text that looks like an opinion in 2026. This would not help differentiate AI from human authors.
12.
by ivorius 3mo ago
> what if code contributions objectively improve something? If the contribution is complex enough, it is no longer an 'objective improvement' but rather a judgement call, and in the process becomes copyrightable. This is where
13.
by ivorius 3mo ago
The Godot maintainers do review based on the quality of contributor's past contributions. Those becoming especially proficient can even become maintainers. Allowing AI use by 'trusted contributors' has been suggested and disc
14.
by ivorius 3mo ago
> - Negative: Submitters just add stylistic markers to make their accounts and output seem human-generated. This is like syntactic sugar: the core content and the size of contributions stay the same, but the style gets quirkier. From my
15.
by ivorius 3mo ago
The writer got it wrong. Godot never did accept fully AI-authored code contributions. What's changed now is that Godot prohibits any substantial AI written code (though this was already mostly enacted before making it policy).
16.
by ivorius 3mo ago
The past 10 years have been a sad, slow decline for Apple's UIs. I'm really hoping for them to reclaim some of their former UI glory. At least, in Golden Gate, they reverted their own HIG violation of excessive icons back to facto
17.
by ivorius 3mo ago
An AI statement is expected separately in a week or so. Edit: Actually, it was just released!