You have a reply saying that a heatsink won’t fix the problem. That person is deadass wrong.

I’m assuming you mean me. I suggest you read what I wrote again before you apply your “years of experience” because your terrible advice will leave OP with a dead PC in a couple years at best. I’m not saying an nvme heatsink won’t reduce the ssd’s temps. I’m saying you’re setting a heatgun at 100C, aiming it at the nvme and now attempting to fix the “heat issue” with a heatsink. The nvme temps are the tree in the forest and OP is better off addressing the core problem, airflow, which will both reduce nvme temps and prolong the life of the entire pc.

The problem is that the ssd gets hot when it does stuff. A passive heatsink provides more thermal mass and more surface area with a greater capacity to transfer its heat into the air. That will, 100% improve things.

Wrong. The SSD also gets hot when the rest of the PC “does stuff”, including the cpu and/or gpu which are often the leading contributers to internal temps. More thermal mass and surface area will mean little if the ambient temps are high. You have all these case manufacturers making high end cases with 8+ fan mounts for a reason - because of how important moving hot air away from the hardware components is. Your solution will absolutely not improve things a 100%.

I am speaking from years of experience when I say the following: a half inch nut from the hardware store superglued to the package

Please don’t do this OP. Superglue typically bonds two materials via chemical reaction and will damage your hardware, removal will also be a nightmare depending on the glue. I’m assuming OP wanted to say thermal adhesive but superglue sounds more “hack-ey” when trying to impress a novice I guess.

Your doubts are warranted. Heatsinks at best drop component temps to ambient temps, so the heat from the cpu and gpu in such a tightly packed environment will severely limit any benefit it can offer. So this is sort of like debating whether to upgrade from 2" plastic wheels to 3" rubber/steel wheels on a pickup truck.

Heat is the enemy of electronics and considering the cost of internal components, investing in even an ultra-budget case with 2-3 fan mounts and some fans will always be worth it. Because if the motherboard dies tomorrow, most people would find themselves up shitts creek without a paddle.

every single published study shows that AI makes developers worse.

Can’t thank you enough for this list!!! I asked anti AI folks and the best I got was a study on AI assisted essay writing with 8 people per control group. The rest were insults, mockery, shifting goalposts, so naturally, as someone who just arrived at the fence, I found myself siding with the less troll-ey side. My guess is this is more an issue of “worse than an enemy is an incompetent ally” because any single study in your list would have done it for me.

This study has some positives on AI use in coding, but I’d exercise caution due to the tabloid-ey nature of using the term “AI-slop” everywhere in a study that’s supposed to be unbiased.

tiring

Hate to tell you this but that’s probably a core feature here.

Someone was trying to argue here that code is less about what it actually does and more about the feelings that drove them (as distinct from thought processes or motivating logic behind them) and since AI betrays this, must AI disclosure blah blah!!!

Once arguments have entered the realm of absurdity and legitimate discourse is overshadowed by bad faith discussions of shifting goalposts and gish gallops, the only question that remains is who stands to gain the most from the english speaking world being slow to adopt AI.

Once reasonable heads have left the room and decline to discuss any topic on AI (because they expect the toxic environment devoid of reason), only agenda driven collectives and a handful of their useful idiots will steer future discourse.

What would be the point of jumping through these hoops in the first place? As OP pointed out, the disclosure requirement is itself irrelevant due to the amount of scrutiny the code goes through. So we’re forcing disclosure to… shame AI users? Discourage its use?

The quoting bit is just me teasing you and the edit was just that I said “you” when I should’ve said “they” in the first sentence. Sorry to disappoint, I guess.

Also, accusing others of deleting or editing their comments while using an account that isn’t even a month old kinda looks like projection.

Interesting interpretation of my comment. Do you often feel that people on the internet are out to get you?

You said I “argued for” open source, copyleft and how copyright should not exist at all.

I’m not OP. But I think OP has you pegged.

I get why the quoting bothers you, but ime, people with a particular style of ‘reasoning’ tend to go back and edit or delete all of their comments.

I literally never said any of those things. Do you want to engage with people or just have fictional discussions in your own echo chamber?

Also, are we forgetting that AI models were trained by stealing from a fuckton of people? How are folks ok with this? Why is the discussion solely about how well the models work? Where is everyone’s moral compass?

Also considering how often you miss the mark with it, maybe look up what psychopath actually means…

As time goes by, you just learn to understand that some people are just not worth your time.

No u

Children don’t typically express honesty with ‘fuckstick’. ‘Childish’ here is used to refer to the absence of capacity or ability to engage in constructive discussion. But feel free to keep painting ‘fuckstick’ in any shade you like. I personally prefer ‘Yo mama’ jokes when I lack the ability to win a particular argument.

Sure, but if ‘fuckstick’ is your sole ‘argument’, you can’t exactly call foul when someone declines to engage with you for being childish.

Do you have an actual counter to my original argument or are you just going to throw vague insults at anyone who disagrees with you like everywhere else you’ve commented in this post?

Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.

Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.

90% of AI bros hide it and refuse to disclose and when they do are often extremely cagey about it

source?

Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?

Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?

Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people. I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.

Because rules have to be enforced, and investing time and effort into detecting and punishing rule-breakers would be a pointless endeavor when, disclosure/AI or not, all code has to be reviewed anyway.

I have to say the same thing I said to the other commenter; I’m really not sure that “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.

Nice attempt at spin but relies too much on readers having room temperature IQ to believe that’s what my argument is. And just to be clear, by ‘Nice attempt’ I’m being sarcastic.

On the contrary, a small piece of text that says “this code deserves more review because humans may not have seen it” is absolutely necessary.

All this is doing is making it so I can hide that I didn’t touch the code.

Why are you assuming that everyone would honestly disclose AI use if it was a rule?

The honest ones that would disclose it to say “this needs more eyes, guys” can still do just that. The dishonest ones that would hide AI use will do exactly that whether it’s a rule or not.

The only difference here is there’s no punitive action to follow for non-disclosure because that would be a gigantic waste of time when, AI or not, all code needs to be reviewed anyway.

Even considering rhetorical goals and context, without “I particularly dislike this guy”, it’s an enormous leap to twist those words that way.

Stop blaming the pandas.

Thanks for your contribution to the pile.