Licencing

Rogue Scholar has a hard requirement that all content be Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY). There’s no ability (yet) to choose different licences. Personally, I prefer Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY->SA). I’ve allowed Rogue Scholar to use CC BY for my work which, of course, means if you get my posts through them you are also allowed to use CC BY.

Well, there goes my interest 🤷 I mean, I don’t know how enforceable such an arrangement is, but it’s the principle of the thing for me.

score 1 · canonical

while providing absolutely no value over a plain server-side-rendered html page.

Alas, the “value” is in pushing the HTML rendering expense onto the client so that you don’t have to buy servers to render the HTML.

score 1 · canonical

Unfortunately, rsync updates are vibecoding related

Yes, they are. Its unfortunate, but its also the reality of the world we live in at the moment. I’d also rather see LLM’s/“AI” be used to find CVE’s and help get things fixed than let the vulnerabilities sit and be abused.

Are any of these CVEs related to the vibecoded refactor of rsync?

(ETA: Only one of the high+ CVEs has an affected version range >= 3.4.1 (when, I think, vibecoding started getting added): CVE-2026-70455, with >= 3.4.2, <= 3.4.4 ; and, at first glance, it doesn’t look related to any vibecoding; it was a dragging PR from several years ago with only a single, relatively brief commit to the implementation.)

I mostly draw the line at using LLM’s/“AI” to do all the coding from the start. I think as something like a ‘linter’ they’re mostly fine. It gets to be a bit problematic when you’re letting the bots write the code and you can’t really attribute copyright properly.

IIRC, rsync made a point of doing a large refactor via LLMs. If that vibecoded code is, itself, vulnerable, then… LLMs aren’t exactly helping on the abused vulnerabilities front.

score 1 · canonical