I get it if you're trying to defend your buddy, but at the end of the day it's on software to justify itself to me. Not for me (or parent poster) to justify their refusal.

Once bitten twice shy, y'know. Maybe the first bite wasn't even from bun. If bun can't take this on the chin and come back stronger, maybe bun wasn't a good choice to begin with. I'm sure a future version of bun with a rebuilt reputation will have an easy time getting re-adopted by most projects that needed to play it safe during the transition.

tl;dr: give up, stop trying. just approve the juniors' PR without comment so you have more time to proompt.

> nor have they ever been accused of this

Sure they have. Just look at the accusation in the comment you're replying to.

credibly accused.

> They know more about the reliability of web pages than just about anybody else out there.

Google's little secret about the internet is the same thing Gen X / Millennials were taught for a while but then expected to forget: nothing on the internet can be trusted, bar none. If google can make guesses about relative reliability, that's cute. But it doesn't upend the ground truth.

>So what is he supposed to say?

How to deal with it. Spitting "deal with it" at the audience just says he was so unprepared that he didn't even realize he was literally hired to give them that send-off guidance. But being skilled and notable in a field doesn't make people insightful.

Good one.

> But if that is the case (and it seems to be), then a coin flip is better than their models.

If a coin flip is the necessary mental model to remind you both things can happen, then sure.

People just love horse race coverage. Silver gave us the most accurate horse race coverage. Maybe the lesson is stop following horse race coverage.

But most people went back to the tea leave readers. That way when the election was over, it can justifiably be the charlatan's fault that viewers got over-invested in their predictive capabilities.

Don't you want to test mythos against state of the art projects? They are the best chance of making visible what mythos uniquely brings to the table.

We already know that mythos will be branded catnip for sub-SOTA projects. They could have build SOTA secure software development practices last week, last month or last year. But didn't care. What will their experience with mythos tell us other than AI hype can create corporate will to take security seriously?

> Don't you want to test mythos against state of the art projects?

Yes, I'm just saying don't make judgements based on this single project alone.

> If you don't ever have a massive PR from a dynamite session, then you cannot ever be better than "average and plodding".

That's just cope to avoid learning how to turn a big change into a well organized patch series.

In retort, that's just doubling down that everything should always be average and plodding.

I'm not saying one shouldn't learn how to stage large changes into a mature codebase. Sometimes the overhead is very worth it, maybe most times if you're close to the profit center of a faang. But one should understand multiple ways of working, for different situations.

If you can't be arsed to prepare your code for review because it's such a buzzkill to your velocity, why are you even reviewing then? Just push to main.

I'm not being snarky. I put different review standards in place for different repos on my team. Sometimes the standard is no standard. Push to main. Figure it out later.