Sounds like you're expecting the AI-based tools that are finding bugs to also provide fixes.
I've been dealing with a bunch of AI-generated (or at least -assisted) vulnerability reports lately. In many cases the reports include proposed patches to fix the issues.
It's been..... interesting. In many cases, the analysis provided in the report has been accurate and helpful. In some cases, the proposed patches have also been good, and we've accepted them with minimal or no changes.
In other cases, despite finding a valid issue, and even providing a good analysis of the problem, the AI tool's suggested patch has been, quite simply, wrong.
Careful review from somebody who really _understands_ the code -- and the wider context in which it is operating -- is still absolutely necessary. That's not always going to happen in an hour.
An example worth considering is TeX, which is now 43 years old (considering only TeX82; the earlier TeX78 was a substantially different piece of software). There has been some maintenance over the years, it's true, including a few feature additions in 1990 (TeX 3.0), but I would suggest it has shown itself to be extremely durable.
Except that it's not clear whether the intelligence† that underlies their homing ability is equally effective in helping them evade predators.
†Is "intelligence" even the right word here? I don't know. Much depends on how you define it, I guess, combined with the unknowability of the pigeon's own mental processes.
Yes, agreed! The first time I visited San Antonio (as a Brit who was based in Dallas for some months) happened to be at exactly that time. We didn't know anything about it, but found ourselves on the river walk in the evening, and along came the parade of boats bringing Pancho Claus & co... it was a lovely surprise and a beautiful evening.
It does, but those would only be applied if the `font-variant-ligatures: historical-ligatures` property were specified, so they don't appear on this site.
Some years ago I was very frustrated, as a UK citizen visiting the States and suffering from congestion, that I was completely unable to buy it because I wasn't carrying suitable ID that the pharmacy would recognize.
It looks like for some reason Firefox isn't being served the same source as Safari or Chrome. In those browsers, the filename is wrapped in <center>, <a>, and <tt> elements, and followed by <hr> <br>.
But in the version of the HTML that Firefox receives, all that is missing and the filename is just some text that ends up immediately in front of the first line of code.
That's how my mother used to do it, but I've found that you don't actually need to use "lots of fat" -- you can get good results with much less (just enough oil or goose fat to cover the bottom of the roasting tray), provided you toss the potatoes in it (pre-heated) when putting them in, and turn them a few times during cooking.
The variety of potatoes used is also a critical factor.
For something that's more of a substantial story than things like Cars & Trucks or Busy Busy Town, let me put in a word for Peasant Pig and the Terrible Dragon. My kids had it pretty much memorized long before they could read it for themselves.
Another issue you'd run into, I suspect, is that in practice text engines/editors/etc will often repaint only fragments of the content, and so the syntax highlighter would not necessarily see all the context it needs.
E.g. if you have a comment that starts with "/*" and ends several lines later with "*/", but the editor decides to just redraw a line in the middle, the highlighter won't "know" to use the comment color as the text-drawing operation won't include the delimiters.
(This issue already exists in a small way, as mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41251114, but it'd only get worse as the syntax highlighter becomes more sophisticated.)
I've been dealing with a bunch of AI-generated (or at least -assisted) vulnerability reports lately. In many cases the reports include proposed patches to fix the issues.
It's been..... interesting. In many cases, the analysis provided in the report has been accurate and helpful. In some cases, the proposed patches have also been good, and we've accepted them with minimal or no changes.
In other cases, despite finding a valid issue, and even providing a good analysis of the problem, the AI tool's suggested patch has been, quite simply, wrong.
Careful review from somebody who really _understands_ the code -- and the wider context in which it is operating -- is still absolutely necessary. That's not always going to happen in an hour.