vite adds additional things to your page in dev so that it's easier to debug. when you are running it in production, it is just one js bundle & one css file.

works 100% of the time 60% of the time

letting an llm control your tabs in front of you is a security issue... so let's make all of the tabs generated by them as well

> letting an llm control your tabs in front of you is a security issue

If it is your's llm, yes. If it is Google's, no.

well, it was distasteful of to them to close op's pr and apply the same patch with improper attribution, and then use ai to respond when they were asked about it

I agree with the parent post that it's distasteful.

There's no value in naming the employee. Whatever that employee did, if the company needed to figure out who it was, they can from the commit hashes, etc. But there's no value in the public knowing the employee's name.

Remember that if someone Googles this person for a newer job, it might show up. This is the sort of stuff that can disproportionately harm that person's ability to get a job in the future, even if they made a small mistake (they even apologized for it and was open about what caused it).

So no, it's completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the post.

> Remember that if someone Googles this person for a newer job, it might show up.

Not to sound too harsh, but this is a person who rudely let AI perform a task badly which should have been handled by just… merging/rebasing the PR after confirming it does what it should do, then couldn't be bothered to reply and instead let the robot handle it, and then refused to fix the mess they made (making the apology void).

That's three strikes.

What if it's some junior given a job beyond their abilities, and struggling manfully using whatever tools they have to hand. Is it worth publicly trashing their name? What does their name really add to this article?

A good lesson. If you as an employer look at this history, and handle it in the interview appropriately (what did you learn / do better now for example) you can figure out if they did.

I'm sure lots won't, but if that is you as an employer you're worth nothing.

What, understand, review, and accept a two-line patch is now a job beyond a junior's ability? Beyond ability of anyone who can call themselves a "programmer," much less a "maintainer"?

As a certified former newborn, I should tell that finding the tit as a newborn is way harder, and yet here we all are.

"Struggling manfully," my arse, I don't know if the bar can go any lower...

It discourages other from doing the same. It might not be much, but discussing various made up "what if ..." scenarios also doesn't add much. We can just stick to the facts.

I agree what occurred is quite egregious. But "use ai to talk to customers" and "play games with signed commits" sound much more like corporate policy than one employees mistake.

There also might be some corpo dystopian policy that is forcing them to use AI to do this task.

Why would the company need to figure it out from commit hashes? It's all public, in public GitHub repositories, with the person's personal GitHub account: https://github.com/auth0/nextjs-auth0/pull/2381

> Remember that if someone Googles this person for a newer job, it might show up.

So you'd rather the company get incomplete information about a candidate with hopes the candidate gets hired from a place of ignorance? If it's something the company would avoid hiring him for, then I don't find a problem with giving them the agency to make that decision for themselves.

> This is the sort of stuff that can disproportionately harm that person's ability to get a job in the future.

Isn't that beneficial in this case?

> Remember that if someone Googles this person for a newer job, it might show up.

That's the whole point; I sincerely hope it does. Why would anyone want to hire someone that delegates their core job to a slop generator?