home.social
  1. This is aside from the fact that the PR appears to be a totally bogus fix.

    But now I've just spent 10 minutes thinking about how to deal with this AI crap in general.

    And so I start to serve the machines...

    "People can do the work, so that machines have time to think" Biftek

    youtube.com/watch?v=FFplFwOXxs8

  2. security issue in {insitu}

    I just received this AI-generated PR, which posits that a crafty user could lie about matrix dimensions and cause a malloc issue.

    But a malicious user can just do a "system()" call.

    So what's the point of addressing this "critical" security issue?

    github.com/coolbutuseless/insi

  3. ANyone know a good CONTRIBUTING.md (or similar) that I can add to my projects such that:

    * Issues and PRs have to be from humans.
    * I don't mind if you use AI, but don't just auto-drench my repository with AI generated reports.

  4. Expected response when submitting to CRAN

  5. Submitting a new package to CRAN

  6. Dev Diary:

    A signed distance field representing a knot is rendered in isocubes and as a polygon mesh

  7. Shiny plastic versino!

  8. Dev Diary: More constructive solid geometry

    Convert signed distance field to polygons with marching cubes. Then render in {rgl}

  9. Constructive Solid Geometry ()

    1. Canonical CSG example object
    2. Construction in R
    3. Representation as R expression
    4. Evaluationof isosurface + render in {isocubes}

  10. Dev Diary: Constructive Solid Geometry!

    * Define CSG object.
    * Convert object to R expression.
    * Evaluate R expression on grid to find isosurface
    * Render as {isocubes}

  11. Introducing {zap} - a new serialization framework for

    * uses type-specfic transformations +
    * for 'diamonds' dataset, it is more compressed than 'saveRDS(xz)' and faster than 'saveRDS(compress=FALSE)

    github.com/coolbutuseless/zap
    coolbutuseless.r-universe.dev/

  12. {zstdlite} news - package was accepted by CRAN 2 days ago, and has now been removed from CRAN by BDR for pretty weak policy "violations".

    It feels like something that could have been emailed to me for discussion, instead of straightout rejection-after-initial-acceptance.